Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

For the University of St. Andrews, the University of Glasgow, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Edinburgh, in the room of George Alexander Morrison, Esquire (Manor of Northstead).—[Mr. Beechman.]

PRIVATE BILLS

(STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO COMPLIED WITH)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,—Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Weaver Navigation Bill.

Bill committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT

Employment, Cumberland

Mr. F. Anderson: asked the Minister of Labour (1) the total number signing the register weekly at Cleator Moor, Millom and Whitehaven exchanges, for light work only, during the last three months; how many have been registered for 12 months, six months and three months, respectively; and how many times during the last six months have these registrants been offered for employment and employers have refused to engage;
(2) the number of work-people paid off

during the last three months at High Duty Alloys, Limited, Distington, and the cause for the reduction in the number employed; and how many have been reinstated in other employment;
(3) the total number of unemployed, male and female separately, who have signed on week by week during the last three months at Whitehaven, Cleator Moor and Millom exchanges, respectively; how many have been placed in employment during the period under notice within the areas covered by these exchanges; and how many have been directed to or found work outside the exchange areas referred to, giving the localities where employment has been found.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): I will, if I may, write to my hon. Friend giving him such information as is available in reply to these Questions.

Directed Ex-officers

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is satisfied that officers who have been called on to resign their commissions on account of inefficiency or misconduct are at once directed either to service in the ranks or to other work of national importance; and how long a period elapses before such ex-officers are so directed.

Mr. Bevin: Officers who relinquish their commissions for reasons other than medical unfitness are, if within effective age for calling-up, required to register or re-register under the National Service Acts. They have the usual statutory rights under the Acts and are subject to the normal deferment arrangements. In addition, those officers who have not had their commissions terminated because of misconduct are given the opportunity of making representations against being called up for service in the ranks. Such representations are considered on merits by my Department in consultation with the Service Department concerned. I am satisfied that there is no undue delay in dealing with these cases, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any particular case in mind I shall be pleased to look into it.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there have been reported cases of ex-officers of this description going about doing nothing for some considerable time after they have resigned their commissions? I will certainly send information to him.

Oral Answers to Questions — STRIKE, LONDON DOCKS

Captain Gammans: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the strike in the London docks.

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. The strike was started at the Royal Docks by some 500 stevedores, and spread rapidly. I am glad to say that the men at Tilbury have resumed work this morning. The main body of dockers has decided to resume work when the stevedores resume and the Amalgamated Stevedores and Dockers are meeting this morning with a view to securing a resumption of work forthwith. The immediate cause of the dispute was the transfer of the place of proof of attendance to an office inside the Royal Docks. The existing huts used for this purpose were regarded as unsuitable. Another question which has caused grave anxiety throughout January was the increase of absenteeism at the Royal Docks and it became necessary for those responsible to deal with it. Happily however this did not apply to the rest of London. The strike is completely unjustifiable. The machinery of the National Joint Council for the Dock Industry, which was established following the Shaw inquiry twenty years ago, is both capable and adequate to deal with any legitimate grievance in a constitutional way and it should have been used and the war effort not impeded by this reckless act. The Government have taken all the necessary steps to deal with cargoes required for operational purposes and to safeguard civilian supplies at home. As there is an opportunity now of complete resumption and I have undertaken that an inquiry will be held into the alleged grievances, I would ask to be excused from saying any more at present.

Mr. Thorne: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the difference between the two calling-on stations?

Captain Gammans: Is it not a fact that the food situation in London will be very seriously affected if the strike continues?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. Steps have been taken to feed London. It is the duty of the Government to see that action of this kind does not interfere with supplies during war-time. Therefore, I do not fear any consequences under that head.

Mr. Foster: Is the Minister satisfied that the employers have themselves used the machinery which is set up for settling disputes, and that they are not guilty of some prolongation of this dispute?

Mr. Bevin: I can assure my hon. Friend, from my experience of the joint council machinery which I used for over 20 years, that any problem connected with the dock industry can be discussed within hours, if necessary. Therefore, if there had been feeling about this matter, the local committee in the region should have been summoned, and should have dealt with the thing right away, with a right of appeal to the National Council.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING INDUSTRY

Mr. Molson: asked the Minister of Labour when he discontinued the calling up for military service of men in the building trades; how many such men were called up during the calendar year 1944; and whether any such men have been called up in 1945.

Mr. Bevin: Apart from a small number of cases where men have been required as tradesmen in the Forces, the calling-up of men in craftsmen's occupation in the building industry has been restricted since the end of June, 1943, to fresh registrants who were not granted deferment as apprentices and to young men whose deferment as apprentices came to an end. Since October, 1944, however, apprentices have not been called up when their deferment as apprentices has ended. The number of such men in the building industry called up in 1944 was approximately 8,000 and consisted almost entirely of young men reaching the age of 18. A corresponding figure for the first two months of 1945 is not yet available.

Mr. Molson: Is the calling-up of men in the building industry still going on?

Mr. Bevin: Only in certain cases where the Forces need certain tradesmen whom they must have to make up for casualties, and to meet other requirements.

Mr. Lionel Berry: asked the Minister of Labour the number of operatives at present employed in the building industry; the number so employed at the outbreak of war; and how many of these are now serving in the armed forces of the Crown.

Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave on 25th January to a similar question by the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor).

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Labour in view of the fact that the great problem in housing is man-power, whether he is taking steps to use women who are available for handling certain sections of the work in the building industry or to use building trade mechanics from amongst Italian collaborators and prisoners of war.

Mr. Bevin: The employment of women in the building industry in the present emergency is provided for by an industrial agreement and a certain number are already so employed. In reply to the second part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) on 28th February.

Mr. Bossom: Can my right hon. Friend say that there is no objection to the use of women in this industry in this great emergency?

Mr. Bevin: I have never heard of any.

Colonel Lyons: asked the Minister of Works whether, in view of the considerations of national man-power, productive capacity, finance and export demands for building components over the next 10 years, he will review his proposed expansion of the building industry so as to provide for such expansion as is practicable for the economic efficiency of the industry in the light of these factors.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Hicks): I am not aware of any new material factors which would necessitate a reconsideration of the proposed expansion of the building industry. The considerations referred to in the Question were fully taken into account when the size of the post-war building labour force was projected in the Government White Paper on Training for the Building Industry (Command 6428).

Colonel Lyons: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is intended to review this proposed expansion of the building industry a short time from now?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH

Hospitals (Employment of Women)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Minister of Labour, whether it is his intention to introduce legislation to deal with the employment of women in hospitals.

Mr. Bevin: I have no such intention at present.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that great resentment was caused by a recent speech of his, in which he referred to "slut-minded charwomen" employed in hospitals; and does that represent his point of view?

Mr. Bevin: I did not know there was any resentment. What I suggested was that the practice of employing charwomen in the manner in which they had been employed, must be ended, and must be put on a proper footing.

Sir H. Williams: Does my right hon. Friend think it fair to describe these charwomen, who have worked under great difficulties during the war, as "slut-minded"?

Mr. Bevin: I did not use the phrase "slut-minded."

Medical Schools (Women Students)

Sir William Beveridge: asked the Minister of Labour, if he is aware that many women over the age of 19 have had their medical studies since 1943 interrupted, after passing their first medical examinations, by national service; that two of the three London medical schools which admit women are about to hold entrance examinations to select students for the second medical course starting next October, but that successful candidates in the above age category cannot be allotted vacancies without his approval before the examination results are known; and if he will allow such of these women who reach the requisite standard at these examinations for securing admission to the schools to accept places provisionally.

Mr. Bevin: In consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, I am making arrangements by which medical schools may consider provisionally applications from women of any age who wish to be admitted next October. The question whether selected candidates will be permitted to begin their courses at that date will, of course, depend upon the national situation.

Refuse Collection (London)

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that garbage in certain parts of London is not being collected for as much as five weeks owing to the shortage of labour and the nature of the labour available; and whether he will allocate more labour to the Metropolitan boroughs concerned so that a more frequent collection can be made and in order to avoid an outbreak of disease.

Mr. Bevin: I am aware of the difficulties to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers, which arise from the general shortage of labour in London to meet the requirements of essential products and services. I am however giving urgent consideration to the means whereby the most pressing of these particular demands may be satisfied.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that unless an improvement is made in the collection of refuse there will be a real danger of epidemics when the warmer weather comes; and will he do everything he can to improve the labour supply?

Mr. Manning: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in some otherwise well-run boroughs in London, the position is even worse than that stated in the Question, that six to eight weeks elapse between collections, that there is a difficulty in some parts in getting the proper servicing of vehicles and the labour of many kinds which is wanted, and that the health question is causing considerable concern?

Mr. Bevin: The difficulty in London is that, with bomb damage repairs and so many other claims upon me, it is difficult to meet all the requirements. I wondered whether some new method could be introduced which would result in pooling some of the services, and I propose to meet the local authorities to look into that, and to see whether I can economise labour and, at the same time, give them some relief.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: In considering that will my right hon. Friend bear in mind a reply of the Minister of Supply yesterday that certain kinds of salvage which are collected are in short supply and are badly needed?

Sanatorium, Bramshott (Staff)

Sir G. Jeffreys: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware of the difficulties experienced by the King George's Sanatorium for Sailors at Bramshott, Hampshire, owing to the impossibility of obtaining adequate staff to carry on its work; and whether he will assist this sanatorium to obtain at once the services of two sisters, two staff nurses and six student nurses, for whom vacancies exist and who are now urgently required.

Mr. Bevin: I am doing my best to provide additional nursing staff for this sanatorium, which has been given the highest priority. My hon. and gallant Friend will, however, be aware of the great difficulties which arise as the result of the acute general shortage of nurses.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this admirable institution has had to close one ward, and that we have a long waiting list with which we are unable to cope?

Mr. Bevin: I appreciate very much that there is a shortage of nurses but, as I explained to the House some time ago in answer to a Question, I cannot make good the lack of nurses, particularly with the extra demand made upon them in war. The situation ought to have been foreseen and allowed for before the war. That is the great difficulty I am in.

Nursing Mothers (Unpasteurised Milk)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to ensure that expectant and nursing mothers may be able to secure supplies of natural unpasteurised milk.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I should not be prepared to take any such action. It is not practicable at present to supply safe milk except by pasteurisation and by handling it throughout with strict hygienic precautions.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that quite eminent medical authorities regard pasteurisation as devitalisation? If people want unpasteurised milk, should they not be free to get it?

Mr. Willink: It is not a question of whether they should be free to get it. I could not, on a supplementary question, enter into this controversial matter of the value of pasteurisation.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the statement of the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) does not accord with scientific facts?

Oral Answers to Questions — DEMOBILISATION (REINSTATEMENT AND RESETTLEMENT)

Mr. Walter Edwards: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are being taken to inform members of the Forces while they are still serving of the arrangements made to assist in their resettlement after release.

Mr. Bevin: As I stated in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth (Sir L. Lyle) on 1st March, a booklet entitled "Release and Resettlement" will shortly be issued to all serving members of the Forces. In addition I have arranged, in agreement with my colleagues, to send 15 officers from my Department to meet men and women of the Forces who are stationed abroad in various theatres of war, including Europe, the Middle East, India and Burma. These officers will explain and discuss on the spot the resettlement plans which are described in the booklet.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Can copies of that leaflet be supplied to Members of this House?

Mr. Bevin: Oh, yes.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE

Bethnal Green Shelter Accident (Claims)

Sir Percy Harris: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is now in a position to make a statement on the Bethnal Green shelter case; and particularly as to the position of Servicemen whose claims are Statute barred.

Mr. Chater: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now made any offer of assistance to the Bethnal Green local authority to enable them to settle outstanding claims arising out of the shelter accident.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): After careful consideration of the whole of the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate accident, I have come to the conclusion

that it would be right that the Bethnal Green Borough Council should receive exceptional financial assistance from the Exchequer in meeting the liability which attaches to the council as a result of the decision by the Court of Appeal in the proceedings, brought by Mrs. Baker. The council have agreed to deal with outstanding claims in the following manner, and the whole of the expenditure thus entailed, and that already incurred in defending and settling Mrs. Baker's claim, will be reimbursed by the Exchequer, less the sum received by the council under an insurance policy. Persons now receiving pensions from the Ministry of Pensions will be free to elect whether they will maintain their pension position or pursue their rights at law. Those who choose the latter alternative will continue to receive their pensions for a reasonable period while negotiations are proceeding. Payment of the pensions will cease on payment of damages. Damages assessed in the light of the judgment delivered in Mrs. Baker's case will be paid to claimants on whose behalf writs were o issued within 12 months of the accident. As regards Statute barred claims, a category in which I believe my hon. Friends are particularly interested, the Statute will not be relied upon in the case of claims lodged on or before 31st December, 1944, provided that good and substantial cause is shown to the satisfaction of the Treasury Solicitor for failure to put the claim forward at an earlier date. In the case of claims lodged after 31st December, 1944, the decision not to rely upon the Statute will be confined to those where the delay in submission is due to absence of the claimant outside the jurisdiction.

Sir P. Harris: While thanking my right hon. Friend, may I ask him whether he can give any estimate of the probable cost?

Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I cannot, because all the claims are not in and negotiations have not yet taken place.

Personnel (Gratuities)

Mr. Manning: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can now make a statement regarding gratuities for the C.D. service.

Captain Gammans: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to make a statement


regarding war gratuities for Civil Defence workers, the National Fire Service and the Police War Reserve.

Mr. H. Morrison: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will be making a statement at the end of Questions, in which he will deal with this matter.

Air Raid Warning System, East Coast

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what system of air-raid warning was used during the recent raid by piloted aircraft on the East coast area; and if he is satisfied with these arrangements.

Mr. H. Morrison: The air raid warning system is that which has been in operation throughout the war, with the improvements introduced a year ago. I have made inquiries into its working during the raid referred to by my hon. Friend and I am satisfied that in general it operated efficiently.

Mr. Granville: In view of the fact that some of the towns and villages were attacked during the dim-out or when lights were showing, would the right hon. Gentleman consider instituting a separate or special warning for piloted aircraft raids?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think that would be practicable.

Mr. Granville: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the danger to our own aircraft returning in the conditions in which our Civil Defence has to be carried out?

Mr. Morrison: Perhaps we are getting too close to operational matters to pursue this point further.

Local Authorities (Evacuation Grants)

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Health the amount, as on the last convenient date, of the allowance made by way of grants and by interest-free allowances to local authorities in the evacuation areas.

Mr. Willink: The advances made to authorities of evacuation areas and other local authorities in need of assistance, amounted, on 28th February last, to £14,348,880.

Oral Answers to Questions — ILL-TREATMENT OF CHILDREN (CONVICTED PARENTS)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of the parents convicted in any recent period of cruelty to their children have been fathers and mothers, respectively.

Mr. H. Morrison: I regret that I am unable to give the information asked for by my hon. Friend, since the available statistics do not distinguish parents from other persons convicted of ill-treating or neglecting children. I can say, however, that of 1,611 persons found guilty of such offences by magistrates courts in 1943, 509 were men and 1,102 were women, and my information is that in the great majority of such cases the defendants are parents. Many of these cases are cases of neglect, not of actual cruelty or ill-treatment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHANNEL ISLANDS (RELIEF SUPPLIES)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what progress is being made in organising and delivering relief supplies to the Channel Islands.

Mr. H. Morrison: Since my reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hornsey (Captain Gammans) on 22nd February, the "Vega" has made a further voyage, and was due to arrive in the Islands on or about 5th March with a cargo of flour, yeast, Red Cross parcels, soap, salt, medical and surgical supplies and a small quantity of petrol for the local ambulances. I hope that it will be possible in the near future to send a consignment of clothing, footwear and certain other commodities.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he considers that one ship is sufficient for the purpose, and whether he would not consider using additional ships, or even aircraft?

Mr. Morrison: Aircraft would not be suitable, and as to ships, the Ministry of War Transport are in very great difficulty about shipping. I will keep the point in mind.

Captain Gammans: Can anything be done about the evacuation of old or sick people?

Mr. Morrison: I answered a Question about sick people last week. We are making arrangements, where local medical facilities are not adequate, to get people evacuated to this country.

Earl Winterton: In view of the fact that there has been very much criticism of the Government on this matter, may I suggest that, in order to prevent a bad relationship existing between us and our fellow subjects in the Channel Islands after the war, the right hon. Gentleman might consider issuing a White Paper on the whole subject, showing the difficulties, and also what has been done?

Mr. Morrison: I will consider that suggestion, but I doubt whether the time would be suitable for it yet. I will keep it in mind. I thought that, broadly speaking, the islanders and their friends here were satisfied that we are doing our very best.

Oral Answers to Questions — MURDER CHARGE (WOMAN'S LEGAL AID)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department at what stage in the case of Mrs. Jones, condemned to death for murder, this woman first had legal advice.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am informed that on her first appearance before the Feltham justices on 14th October, 1944, Mrs. Jones was granted a legal aid certificate entitling her to free legal aid, and that on the resumed hearing before the justices on 3rd November she was represented by counsel who was instructed by her solicitors.

Oral Answers to Questions — CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons under 21 years of age have been hanged for murder since the year 1900 and how many of these were women.

Mr. H. Morrison: Since 1900 the sentence of death has been carried out in the case of 28 persons under the age of 21 convicted of murder, none of whom was a woman.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Might I on this occasion thank my right hon. Friend for his clemency and—

Hon. Members: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — DETAINEES (ISLE OF MAN)

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many British subjects are still interned in the Isle of Man; how many are in the fourth and fifth year of detention, respectively; and whether such detainees can now be given improved conditions of detention and, in particular, a separate camp should they so desire.

Mr. H. Morrison: Of the 45 British subjects detained in the Isle of Man, 40 have been detained for more than four years and one over three years. The great majority of these persons are persons of hostile origin or associations, and many of them at their own request have for a long time been accommodated in the camps set apart for aliens of enemy nationality. Owing to the reduction in numbers through releases, it was decided that the maintenance of a separate camp for the few others detained under the Regulation could not be justified, and indeed was hot in their best interest, and in order that they should have the better recreational and welfare facilities of a larger camp, they were transferred to other camps. I am satisfied that they enjoy as good facilities as are possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Harvey: While appreciating the need for economy that governs this decision, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the wishes of the persons concerned as to the particular camps where they are to reside?

Mr. Morrison: I will certainly bear that in mind, but it is also the case that they themselves may well be having a better time in larger numbers than if they were isolated in very small numbers.

Oral Answers to Questions — EVACUEE CHILD'S DEATH, WALLASEY (MEDICAL EVIDENCE)

Mr. Reakes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of important additional medical evidence submitted to him recently with regard to Brian Baldock, a two years old evacuee to Wallasey, who was dead when a local medical practitioner was called in, he will now order a public investigation into the failure of the coroner to hold an inquest on the deceased child.

Mr. H. Morrison: The medical practitioner who was called in in this case immediately reported the death to the coroner. The coroner directed the police surgeon to hold a post mortem examination and the coroner's officer also took statements from Mrs. Baldock and from Mrs. Budd. The police surgeon, having made the examination, reported that there were no signs of violence, that the body was well nourished and that death was due to natural causes, namely cardiac syncope due to broncho-pneumonia. I am informed that there was no information before the coroner or the police at that time to suggest ill-treatment either of the dead boy or his brother; and the coroner, in view of the post mortem report, decided that an inquest was unnecessary and issued his certificate of death from natural causes to the Registrar. This is the action which the coroner is authorised by law to take in a case where he is satisfied, as a result of post mortem examination, that an inquest is unnecessary. I may add that the coroner died on 15th December, 1944. The hon. Member has sent me some information in which it is suggested that the doctor who was called in should have been consulted by the coroner, but I understand that he was asked by the coroner's officer if he wished to make a statement but declined to do so.

Mr. Reakes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the medical practitioner who was called in has given me a signed statement, which I will pass to him, in which he says there was a blue bruise on the forehead of the child, that the body was ill-nourished and the abdominal wall was contracted; and is the right hon. Gentleman now prepared to take that into consideration, jointly with the fact that the brother, aged 3½, was the subject of a cruelty charge, which was found proved by the magistrates?

Mr. Morrison: That was not known at the time of this medical examination. If this is the doctor who was first called in—I take it that is so—I cannot understand why he did not call the attention of the coroner to this. There was a post-mortem examination by the police surgeon, who reported quite contrary to what' has just now been said. Finally, the coroner himself is dead. Therefore I do not see how an inquiry can proceed.

Earl Winterton: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have regard to the evidence that has just been produced by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Reakes). If that evidence is to the effect that the hon. Member has said, it would be monstrous if there were not to be a further investigation.

Mr. Morrison: With great respect, I am not sure. If the hon. Member sends me that statement I will consider it, but I am really at a loss to understand, if it is the case, as appears, that the doctor was of that opinion, why, when he was asked by the coroner's officer if he wished to make a statement, he declined to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE VOTERS (PROXIES)

Mr. Hugh Lawson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that Mr. W. R. Hipwell, organiser of the Allied Ex-Services Association, is inviting Service personnel to send him A.F. B2626 and similar forms not fully filled in so that he can appoint proxies of his own choice without the Service voter knowing anything about the proxy; if such proxies will be valid under the Regulations; or if it is proposed to issue further regulations to deal with this situation.

Mr. H. Morrison: I am not aware of this practice. The completion of proxy appointments by Service voters without specifying the name of the proxy is not barred by the Regulations, but it is an irresponsible procedure which is to be deprecated. As no person may hold more than two proxy appointments in any one constituency—unless a close relative of the Service voter concerned—and must in general vote in person, it is very unlikely that any such practice can have any material result. It is not therefore proposed to deal with this point by an amendment of the Regulations.

Mr. Lawson: Will the Home Secretary take care to examine how this practice is developing, and if he finds it is working contrary to the spirit of democracy will he consider the matter further?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member may be quite sure that, if I find anything is working contrary to the spirit of democracy, I will take notice of it. I do not think they can get very far, but I will certainly keep this matter in mind.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not definitely illegal that anyone, apart from the soldier himself, should appoint a proxy?

Mr. Morrison: I think that is not so. A soldier can fill up the form without putting in the proxy's name. There may be a few cases where the soldier might wish to have the advice and help of people at home in selecting a proxy. I do not think it is illegal, but it is undesirable, and' should be discouraged, but I am not sure that it would not be going too far to make it illegal.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING

Dwelling-House Prices (Committee of Inquiry)

Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to announce the names of the persons appointed to the committee of inquiry set up to consider and report on the practicability of controlling or regulating the price at which dwelling-houses may be sold.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir. I am glad to be able to inform the House that Mr. John Morris, K.C., has agreed to act as Chairman of the Committee and, with permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the names of the members who have agreed to serve.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Will it be permissible for Members to submit to the Committee letters they have received from their constituents on this subject?

Mr. Willink: I am sure the Chairman will welcome the receipt of such letters.

Mr. Bowles: Can we know the terms of reference of this Committee? Do they specifically include the right to inquire into the need for retrospective action?

Mr. Willink: The terms of reference were announced by the Lord President of the Council on 13th February. They are as follow:
To consider, and report, whether it is practicable to control effectively the selling price of houses with or without vacant possession and to prevent undue financial advantage being taken of the present housing shortage; and, if so, what measures should be adopted to effect such objects."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th February, 1945; Vol. 408, c. 29.]

Mr. Bowles: Yes, I was aware of that, but would the right hon. and learned

Gentleman see that the terms are extended to make them retrospective?

Mr. Willink: I cannot possibly, without notice, and in reply to a supplementary question, consider the extension of the terms of reference.

Following are the names of the Members:

Committee on the Control of the Selling Price of Houses

1. Mr. John Morris, K.C. (Chairman).
2. Mr. H. W. Butcher, M.P.
3. Commander T. D. Galbraith, M.P.
4. Mr. L. Silkin, M.P.
5. Mr. W. S. Allison.
6. Mr. Leslie Raymond, F.S.I., F.A.I.
7. A representative of the local authorities.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that small house property continues to be offered and sold at three and more times its pre-war value; and whether prospective legislation to deal with this problem is to be applied retrospectively.

Mr. Willink: As already announced, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are appointing a Committee to consider the practicability of controlling the selling price of houses. The question of legislation, and its scope, will be considered in the light of the findings of that Committee.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman answer the latter part of my Question, as to whether legislation will be applied retrospectively? Numerous houses are now being sold for three or four times their value, and can nothing be done about it?

Mr. Willink: The latter part of my hon. Friend's Question postulates prospective legislation. We have appointed this Committee to consider whether legislation will be practicable.

Mr. Sorensen: Will it be applied retrospectively, to deal with houses now sold at abnormal prices?

Mr. Willink: I cannot say what the contents of the legislation will be until I know whether there will be legislation.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give instructions to the Committee to expedite the report?

Mr. Willink: I have intimated to the chairman that I hope he will proceed as rapidly as possible.

Sites (Acquisition)

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Health whether he has confirmed a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition by the Keighley Town Council of 86¼ acres of land at Bracken Bank for housing purposes; for what reason the effort to purchase by agreement failed; what award the arbitrator has given; and what is the value at which the land was assessed for local taxation.

Mr. Willink: No, Sir. The Keighley Town Council purchased this site at the agreed price of £14,500, and the second and third parts of the Question do not, therefore, arise. As regards the last part, the land is agricultural and therefore derated.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Health why he informed the Huntingdon Town Council that it would be better to employ friendly arbitration rather than resort to a compulsory purchase order for the acquisition of a housing site; where is the land in question; what is its area and rateable value; and whether the council approached the owners asking them to agree to arbitration and with what result.

Mr. Willink: There appears to be some misunderstanding. The council were not advised in the sense suggested, and a compulsory purchase order was in fact made and was confirmed last December. The land, which is about seven acres in area, is at Ambury Hill, Huntingdon, and is derated.

Mr. Douglas: asked the Minister of Health whether the Leeds City Council has confirmed a recommendation by its improvements committee for the purchase of land on the Golden Acre Park Estate, adjacent to the Leeds-Otley Road for a sum of £18,500; what area of land is involved and what is its rateable value.

Mr. Willink: I understand that the City Council have confirmed the recommendation in question. The area involved is 146 acres. Only part of the estate is being purchased and I regret that the figure of rateable value is not therefore available.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Minister of Health why he has granted compulsory powers for the acquisition of some of the best agricultural land in the parish of Barley for housing purposes, in

preference to other available sites of less agricultural value.

Mr. Willink: Before the compulsory purchase order was made it was ascertained, in accordance with the procedure agreed by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and myself, that the Ministry of Agriculture did not feel justified in objecting on agricultural grounds to the use of the land for housing.

Rent Control (Committee's Report)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Minister of Health whether he has yet received the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Rent Control.

Mr. Willink: Yes, Sir, and I am arranging for its early publication.

Air-Raid Evacuees (Southampton)

Dr. Russell Thomas: asked the Minister of Health whether some of the number of vacant houses set aside for air-raid evacuees in Southampton can now be released in order to relieve the housing shortage in that town.

Mr. Willink: My information is that the houses which were, until last autumn, held vacant under requisition in Southampton as a reserve of accommodation for persons who might be made homeless by enemy attack, have been made available to relieve the housing shortage, and that any that are now vacant are being prepared for occupation by families inadequately housed. So far as I am aware, no houses have been requisitioned in Southampton for occupation by evacuees.

Foamslag (Price)

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Works whether he will state the price that was agreed between his Department and the producers of foamslag; and whether it is still available at this price.

Mr. Hicks: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works to the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) on 14th February when it was stated that the precise figures of cost could not be quoted. I have no reason to suppose that the figures which were discussed with the industry will not be largely met when the necessary markets have been created to justify regular continuous foaming on a large scale. The present price is of course very much higher.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUILDING PERMITS

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Health, as his Memorandum on Plans for Houses and other Buildings does not specifically state the number of Departments and authorities that must give approval before a substantial building can be erected and occupied, can he give a complete list of the different Departments and authorities to which local authorities or owners must apply before each different type of building can be built and occupied.

Mr. Willink: As the answer is rather long and detailed I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Bossom: Would my right hon. Friend make the statement definite so

The normal system of referencing, apart from war-time controls, and consultation with statutory undertakers, may conveniently be set out as follows:


Type of building to be erected
By whom erected
Reference Authority(ies)


I. Domestic Building.
(i) Local Authority.





(a) London County Council
(i)
Minister of Health.




(ii)
Sanitary Authority.




(iii)
Planning Authority, where other than the Council.



(b) Metropolitan Borough Council.
London County Council.



(c) Provincial Council
(i)
Minister of Health.




(ii)
Planning Authority if different from the Council.




(iii)
Highway Authority if different from the Council.



(2) Private Enterprise.





(a) in London
(i)
London County Council.




(ii)
Metropolitan Borough Council.



(b) in Provinces
(i)
Local Authority.




(ii)
Planning Authority if different from (i).




(iii)
Highway Authority if different from (i).


II. Public Building.
(i) Local Authority
(i)
Minister concerned.




(ii)
Planning Authority if different from Local Authority.




(iii)
Highway Authority if different from Local Authority.




(iv)
Licensing Justices when necessary.



(2) Other bodies or persons
(i)
As in I for domestic buildings erected by private enterprise.




(ii)
Licensing Justices when necessary.


III. Commercial Building.
Private Enterprise
(i)
As in I for domestic buildings erected by private enterprise.




(ii)
Licensing Justices if necessary.

Oral Answers to Questions — UPPER GWENDRAETH RIVER (SILTING)

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the silting of the Upper Gwendraeth river does not cause pollution, interference with sewerage and their consequent serious effects upon the

that everyone who is to be responsible for the construction of a substantial building or of a housing estate will know exactly to what authorities and Departments he must apply, so that the work in question may proceed to completion and be occupied?

Mr. Willink: I have promised to circulate the answer for which my hon. Friend asks, which is a complete list.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that not only is the answer long but too long a time has been taken to consider it?

Following is the answer:

health of the adjacent inhabitants of Pontyates.

Mr. Willink: I have had the public health aspect of the flooding of this river investigated and have come to the conclusion that the effects are not sufficient to justify my pressing, on public health grounds alone, for the execution of a


scheme of the magnitude which would be required; but I am keeping in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the matter.

Mr. Hughes: Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that the conditions are worsening here year after year, and that the reports of the Medical Officer of Health are directly contrary to what he now says?

Mr. Willink: This matter was specially examined from the public health point of view. It is a difficult problem, not affecting any large number of houses, and a method of dealing with it in a satisfactory way has not yet been found. The present scheme is very expensive. I have discussed this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and he and I agree that this is not an appropriate time to undertake it.

Mr. Hughes: I beg to give notice that owing to the nature of the reply I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVICE PERSONNEL (POLITICAL MEETINGS)

Sir H. Williams: asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that persons in the Services who are delegates to the forthcoming Conservative Party conference have been forbidden to speak thereat, despite the fact that many such persons spoke at the recent Liberal and Labour Party conferences; and will he take steps to remove this discrimination.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Members of the forces are allowed to attend political meetings, but are not allowed to speak at them, as such action would amount to taking an active part in the affairs of a political organisation or party, which is forbidden by the King's Regulations. This does not apply to serving Members of Parliament, who during the war may speak on any occasion. Prospective candidates may speak in their own constituencies only.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain people broke the law by speaking at a Labour Party conference?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I think it is all run very fairly, with full agreement

between the heads of the various parties represented in the Government. We would not in any circumstances allow the stealing of marches and unfair tricks in a matter of this kind. We would be very glad to discuss the matter with all other parties.

Mr. Shinwell: My right hon. Friend can surety be relied upon not to encourage the Conservative Party to break the law?

The Prime Minister: The suggestion in the Question is that the other parties break it. I can only say that I trust that the Conservative Party will long remain a model in this respect.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that delegates attending these conferences who are members of His Majesty's Forces are unable to take part, even if they are wearing civilian clothing?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. But, of course, if they were in civilian clothes it might not be noticed.

Oral Answers to Questions — GENERAL ELECTION (PUBLIC HOLIDAY)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to securing the fullest expression of the will of the people at the forthcoming General Election, he will give an assurance that the day of the General Election will be a public holiday.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. Nothing of the sort has ever been deemed necessary before.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEVISION COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Lord President of the Council whether he is now able to make any statement about the Report of the Television Committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir. The report of the Television Committee is being published as a Stationery Office paper, and copies will be available in the Vote Office before the House rises to-day. The recommendations of the Committee are now under consideration by the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he can now make a statement with regard to demobilisation benefits for the W.L.A.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is now able to announce the Government's proposals regarding the W.L.A.

Mr. Edgar Granville: asked the Minister of Agriculture when he expects to make a statement with regard to his negotiations on the payment of a war gratuity to members of the W.L.A.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I would ask my hon. Friends to await the statement to be made at the end of Questions by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Home-Grown Leeks (Market)

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will confer with the Minister of Food with a view to ensuring that a market is available for the home-grown leeks, the market for which has been somewhat interfered with owing to the importation of foreign onions.

Mr. Hudson: I can assure my hon. Friend that I am in constant touch with my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of Food concerning the marketing of agricultural produce. I do not think that the small importation of onions will have any appreciable effect on the market for home-grown leeks, which should be able to absorb remaining supplies of good quality.

Mr. De la Bère: Does my right hon. Friend not appreciate the importance and vital necessity of the leek growers having an cutlet for their produce? It is a very important matter.

Mr. Hudson: Yes, Sir; but the importation of onions does not make any difference.

Livestock (Marketing)

Mr. Arthur Duckworth: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the difficulties now facing the markets committees of local authorities in making plans for the future of cattle markets generally; and whether he is in

a position to make any statement with regard to post-war policy for the marketing of livestock.

Mr. Hudson: I am aware that certain local authorities have the future of their cattle markets under consideration, but regret that I am not at present in a position to make any statement about post-war arrangements for the marketing of livestock.

Mr. Duckworth: Is my right hon. Friend fully aware of the urgency of this matter, and does he not consider a state-men long overdue?

Prices

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can now make some statement regarding farm produce prices and any proposed increases or cuts in prices for the next 12 months.

Mr. Hudson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the statement on this subject which appeared in the Press this morning.

Mr. De la Bère: Are we to be guided entirely by statements in the Press? Is it not better to have these matters raised in the House?

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not essential that an important statement, affecting agriculture and the country, should be made to the House, and that we should not be advised through the Press?

Mr. Hudson: It is a very long statement indeed, going into very great detail. I considered whether I should make it to-day, but, in view of its extreme length and detail, I felt that hon. Members would not like to hear it read out.

Mr. Shinwell: But a statement contributed by the Minister to the Press is not debatable in this House. We can debate statements by Ministers only if they are made here. Can provision be made for Members to hear the statement, and discuss it?

Mr. Edgar Granville: In view of the fact that Members on all sides of the House have been asking questions about this matter for a number of weeks, and that there has been no answer, will my right hon. Friend use his influence with the Leader of the House to see that we are given an early opportunity of debating the statement which appears in the Press to-day?

Mr. Hudson: It is not a matter for me, but if my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House could find the time, I should be very glad to have a Debate.

Mr. De la Bère: This Question has been on the Order Paper for some days. Would it not have been better for my right hon. Friend to have answered it here, instead of doing so through the Press? It is a little hard on the hon. Member for Evesham.

Mr. Hudson: It may possibly be hard on my hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Mr. De la Bère), but I must have regard to some 300,000 farmers, who want to know at the earliest possible moment what prices they are going to get for the crops they have been ordered to plant.

Man-Power

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that many farmers have carried out their cropping orders made by the war agricultural executive committees, but now find that they will no longer be able to do so in view of the shortage of labour, he, in conjunction with the Minister of Labour, will take steps to provide additional labour throughout the present year.

Mr. Hudson: Man-power requirements in agriculture in relation to the food production programme are kept under constant review by the Government, and everything possible will be done to provide the labour needed.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the appalling shortage of labour on the farms now, and that the question of food is vitally urgent for the future? Something further must be done about this matter.

Housing Sites (Agricultural Land)

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the contemplated seizure of valuable agricultural land in the parish of Barley for the erection of council houses, although other sites of less agricultural value are available; and if he will take steps to prevent inroads upon the agricultural resources of the country.

Mr. Hudson: My Department was consulted about the proposal of the Hitchin rural district council to erect houses on a site of about 3½ acres at Barley. After

consideration, including consultation with the county war agricultural executive committee, the site was approved, no equally suitable alternative being discovered. In regard to the second half of the Question, housing proposals by local authorities are examined by my rural land utilisation officers, and my hon. Friend may rest assured that the agricultural interest is taken into account before sites are approved.

Limestone Quarries (Exchequer Grant)

Major Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of complaints of delay by his Lime Department in settling payments of the subsidy for the inauguration of limestone quarries; that, in particular, the company which has opened up the quarries at Dufftown, Banffshire, are unable to procure their subsidy or any draw towards their expenditure which has been expended over two years; and what steps he is taking to arrange these matters to work more quickly and smoothly.

Mr. Hudson: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend refers to the Exchequer grant towards the cost of plant for the production of ground limestone for agriculture. I was not aware that undue delay had occurred in the payment of these grants, or of instalments of them, which are, however, subject to the execution by the producers concerned of a deed embodying the conditions attaching to the grant. In the particular case mentioned, an advance payment has been applied for by the company, who have, however, questioned certain clauses in the deed which they have been asked to execute. The matter is now under examination, and an advance payment will be made to the company as soon as the necessary deed has been executed.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOTPATHS AND BRIDLE PATHS

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning, what action has been taken to implement the recommendations of the Scott Committee with regard to the marking of public footpaths and bridlepaths; and whether the local authorities have been requested to take steps to carry out these recommendations.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given


on the 21st December last. I have not yet received the report in question, but understand that work on its preparation is proceeding as rapidly as the exigencies of war permit.

Mr. Harvey: Would my right hon. Friend say whether the local authorities, in the meantime, are taking any steps to mark footpaths and bridlepaths in view of the urgency of the matter?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. I understand that most of them are interesting themselves in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS APPEAL TRIBUNALS

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: asked the Minister of Pensions if he will give the gist of the new instructions recently given to those representatives of his Ministry who attend Pensions Appeal Tribunals as to the scope of their functions.

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): There has been no change in the scope of the functions of the Ministry Representatives and consequently there has been no need to issue to them any new general instructions.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND GRANTS

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Ian Fraser: asked the Minister of Pensions why a pensioner of the last war, promoted after first removal from duty on account of a disability for which pension was subsequently awarded, is granted a lower pension than would have been the case if his disablement had been sustained in the present war; and if he will take steps to bring the 1919 Royal Warrant into line with the 1943 Warrant.

Sir W. Womersley: Substantive advancement after removal from duty counts for pension purposes in Great War cases as in present war cases. The present war code is more beneficial in the special case where, broadly speaking, a higher paid acting rank is held on removal from duty for aggravation of a condition for which there had been a previous removal. I cannot, however, undertake to bring the Great War instruments into line in every detail with those for present war cases.

Sir I. Fraser: If the present code is more beneficial in this matter, as the Minister

says, and, having regard to the fact that it is a real hardship for a man to get a pension below the rank he had previously held, will he assimilate conditions for the two wars?

Sir W. Womersley: I am prepared to look into any case where hardship can be proved, but it is not worth while going through the process of issuing an amending Warrant for a particular case.

Sir I. Fraser: Perhaps my right hon. Friend will include it in a new Warrant, not necessarily a special Warrant, as it is a small matter.

Sir W. Womersley: If my hon. and gallant Friend will bring a case of alleged hardship, I will certainly look into it and consider the matter.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that the Civilian Injuries Scheme makes no provision for the dependants of an injured civilian who are completely dependent by reason of ill-health; and whether he proposes to remedy this defect.

Sir W. Womersley: Under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme an injured civilian receives, in addition to his own pension, allowances for a wife to whom he was married at the time of his injury and for any eligible children. His position in this respect is broadly comparable with that of disabled service pensioners and I do not feel justified in making provision for the grant of additional allowances in respect of other categories of dependants.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, if a family have been maintaining a sick child of 17 or 18, and find that the breadwinner is incapacitated, they get nothing at all in respect of that child, and it means that it has to be sent to an institution?

Sir W. Womersley: I am very much puzzled as to what the hon. and learned Member really means, and I should be very glad if he will talk to me about the case he has in mind.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Pensions will he seek powers to pay wounds or disability pensions to disabled men retained in His Majesty's Forces and bring them into line with re-engaged war disability pensioners.

Sir W. Womersley: It is a long established principle that a war disability pension is not payable before the termination of the member's period of full paid service. This, in my view, is the proper and, indeed, the only practicable, arrangement. An existing pensioner who re-enlists is specially treated on the grounds that he enters upon a new engagement and that it is reasonable that he should continue to draw any disability pension awarded to him in respect of a previous completed engagement.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Legislative Assembly (Government Defeats)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Secretary of State for India, how many times the Government has been defeated in the Legislative Assembly during the last six months, and on what issues.

The Secretary of State for India (Mr. Amery): I understand from Press reports that the Government of India have been defeated six times in the present budget session of the Legislative Assembly. The first occasion was a vote of censure relating to the grievances of Indians in South Africa; the second issue was that of the methods used for the sale of National Savings Certificates by Government agents in Bihar; the remaining four issues arose in connection with the railway budget.

Mr. Sorensen: Would the right hon. Gentleman say which he considers more adequately expresses the opinion of India—the Government of India, on the one hand, or the Legislature, on the other?

Mr. Amery: I think I must leave that to the hon. Member.

Political Situation

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the desirability of effecting an early solution of the Indian problem, he will consider, without prejudice to the Cripps proposals, taking the initiative in bringing the various interests together for the purpose of another discussion.

Mr. Creech Jones: asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the recent speech by Sir Zafrulla Khan to the Commonwealth Conference regard-

ing another approach by His Majesty's Government to the Indian situation, he can make any statement on this matter.

Mr. Amery: I do not think there is need at this juncture to make any fresh statement on the Indian policy of His Majesty's Government, which has been made fully clear to the world in the Draft Declaration published on 29th March, 1942, and in subsequent pronouncements by His Majesty's Ministers. The fulfilment of that policy depends on a common measure of agreement between the principal parties which His Majesty's Government sincerely wish to see attained. The fact that a committee of Indians under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru is at present studying the problem is welcome evidence that Indians appreciate the importance of the part they must themselves play in shaping the political future of their country.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the conciliatory speeches made recently by Sir Zafrulla Khan and other moderate Indian leaders on this subject, which seems to indicate a new line of approach to a solution of this problem, and, as it is necessary that somebody must take the initiative, is it not desirable that His Majesty's Government should make a friendly gesture in the hope of effecting a rapprochement?

Mr. Amery: While attaching every importance to a speech made by any distinguished Indian, the fact remains that, at present, the leading parties have not yet come into sufficient touch to enable the corresponding gesture from His Majesty's Government to be of any real effect.

Mr. Shinwell: But, at a time when every effort is being made by the British Government and the Allied Governments to effect a solution of world problems is it not desirable that the Indian problem, at some stage, should be included?

Mr. Graham White: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether this is not the time to make a démarche of the kind suggested in the Question, and whether he will take very serious note of the practical nature of this suggestion, which may be, at some time, the proper measure to be taken by the Government?

Mr. Amery: Naturally, I take serious note of every practical suggestion.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that it would be useful if he would renew his assurances on the efforts constantly being made in the Section 93 Provinces to bring about a resumption of constitutional government?

Mr. Amery: It is well known that, in all these Provinces, as soon as there is a willingness to resume constitutional government. Governors will respond to that willingness, as they have done in several Provinces.

Mr. Sorensen: As a step in that direction, why not release the prisoners?

Oral Answers to Questions — BURMA (SERVICE PERSONNEL, PROPERTY LOSSES)

Lady Apsley: asked the Secretary of State for India why no compensation is given to military personnel who lost personal property in Burma when it was invaded by the Japanese; how many officers and men are affected; and whether he will consider the grant of some compensation in view of the losses sustained.

Mr. Amery: Payment of compensation to military personnel for personal kit lost as the result of enemy action in the Far East and Burma up to or in connection with the evacuation of Burma in 1942, was provided for in Army Instruction (India) 314 of 1943. As regards claims to compensation for other personal property lost in Burma, military personnel are in the same position as civilians. Their claims are registered by the Government of Burma for consideration after the war. The number of claims so registered is not on record in my office.

Oral Answers to Questions — COLONIES (DOUBLE TAXATION)

Colonel Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange with the Secretary of State for the Colonies to co-ordinate as far as possible the provisions of the Income Tax Bill with the financial ordinances of the various colonial Governments to ensure equal treatment for industrial concerns registered in this country but operating in the Colonies and therefore affected by double taxation.

Sir J. Anderson: I shall be glad to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies to bring the provisions of the Income Tax Bill, when

enacted, to the notice of Colonial Governments concerned, so that those Governments may consider what action is desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND SWEDEN (MONETARY AGREEMENT)

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any statement to make about the conclusion of a payments agreement between this country and Sweden.

Sir J. Anderson: A Monetary Agreement between His Majesty's Government and the Swedish Government was signed on 6th March. It provides a satisfactory mechanism of payments between the sterling area and Sweden and will thus facilitate trade. The text of the Agreement is being presented to Parliament and copies will be available in the Vote Office after Questions.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is quite clear that this bilateral currency and trade agreement does not conflict with the Bretton Woods proposals?

Sir J. Anderson: I am glad to give my hon. Friend the fullest assurance on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — S.E.A.C. (TOBACCO AND BEER SUPPLIES)

Mr. Bowles: asked the Secretary of State for War when the troops under S.E.A.C. are to receive the increase in the rations of tobacco, cigarettes and beer promised after Lord Minister's visit.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I am not aware of the promise to which my hon. Friend refers. The present ration of cigarettes or tobacco which is issued to all officers and men on field service in S.E.A.C. is 50 cigarettes or two ounces of tobacco a week. An increase of this ration to 100 cigarettes or four ounces of tobacco for British troops in the forward areas has now been authorised. Considerable efforts are being made to step up the supply of beer, and it is hoped to achieve an appreciable increase from June onwards.

Mr. Bowles: If I send my hon. and learned Friend a copy of a letter I have received from people in S.E.A.C. in which


they say they have been promised this increase but have not had it, will he look into the matter?

Mr. Henderson: I would remind my hon. Friend that the increase has just been authorised.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: May I ask the Minister to re-read Lord Munster's report? Is he aware that it is not so much the quantity but the quality of the cigarettes and the fact that they are produced in India, and that they are very unpopular? Are we sending cigarettes from this country?

Mr. Henderson: I hope my hon. Friend will realise that the quality of the cigarettes depends on imports of American tobacco but we are hopeful that in the near future some improvement may be possible.

Mr. E. Walkden: Are they cigarettes like those we smoke at home?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the Business for next week?

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): On Tuesday it is proposed to move Mr. Speaker out of the Chair on going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates, 1945, and to consider Votes A and 1 and Army Supplementary Estimate, 1944, in Committee.

Wednesday—Second Reading of the Income Tax Bill and Committee stage of the necessary Ways and Means Resolution.

Thursday (2nd Allotted Supply Day)—Report stage of Navy, Army and Air Estimates and of outstanding Civil Supplementary Estimates.

Friday—Second Reading of the Welsh Church (Burial Grounds) Bill; Committee and remaining stages of the Limitation (Enemies of War Prisoners) Bill [Lords], and of the Ministry of Fuel and Power Bill; Motion to approve the two Purchase Tax Orders relating to Utility Fur Garments.

I think I should warn the House that, if the Motion to alter the present hours of sitting is agreed to to-day, the new arrangement will operate from Tuesday

next; and I should also warn the House that it will be necessary, of course, to suspend the Rule on Tuesday and on Thursday, as is customary when Service Estimate days are taken, in order to obtain the necessary Business.

Mr. Arthur Jenkins: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when it is intended to take the Second Reading of the Distribution of Industry Bill?

Mr. Eden: I cannot give an actual date, but, I hope, shortly.

Mr. Jenkins: Will it be before Easter?

Mr. Magnay: Is it not of the utmost importance that the Bill should come on as soon as possible?

Mr. Eden: It is so important that it is coming on as soon as possible.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that on the first day of the change in the hours of sitting he proposes to suspend the Rule?

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: I am not asking hon. Members opposite but the Leader of the House, who can speak with authority. May I ask him whether he really suggests that the Rule should be suspended, which might mean that we could go on for several hours after half-past nine—

Hon. Members: Why not?

Mr. Shinwell: —thus inconveniencing Members who live on the outer perimeter of the London area; and is that a fair arrangement, and has he considered transport for the night?

Sir Percy Harris: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that, if the House of Commons wants to pass the social programme that has been outlined, it must be determined and prepared to sit late?

Mr. Eden: What we are doing, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell), with his long knowledge of this House will know, is customary. It is to suspend the Rule when we take the Service Estimates in order to be sure to get the Estimates, but I see no reason why the House should sit late on that occasion, and I hope that it may not do so. It is only the normal precautionary measure. If we are to get through the programme we must have Standing Com-


mittees sitting in the mornings in order to do it.

Mr. Shinwell: As the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to comply with the request of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who leads the Liberal Party, why not meet on Monday and use that day for the purpose of getting the Business through?

Mr. Eden: That is certainly another possibility which might usefully be discussed. For the moment I was dealing with the Business for next week upon the days so far agreed by the House.

Mr. Edgar Granville: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication whether we shall have an opportunity of discussing the Government White Paper on Civil Aviation before the Minister for Civil Aviation leaves for the Conference in South Africa?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir, I could not give that assurance but I hope that the White Paper will be presented before then.

Mr. Gallacher: May I have an answer to the question I have asked every week for the last three weeks? When are we going to get the Bill on Scottish Education?

Mr. Eden: I can make some progress on my answer of last week. We hope to present the Bill next week.

CIVIL DEFENCE SERVICES (GRATUITIES)

The Prime Minister: Since the announcement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made on 6th February, on the subject of gratuities and other release benefits for members of the Forces, the Government have been examining the claims of other classes of similar benefits. The House will realise that in the case of the Armed Forces, a gratuity was given after the last war and that there was a natural expectation that a similar gratuity would be given after the present war. The Government accordingly felt that their scheme for the resettlement of members of the Forces would not be complete without the provision for the payment of a gratuity.
The Government have had to consider all the analogous classes of the community there were to whom a gratuity should also be given. They have come to the conclusion that this benefit should be extended, though on a reduced scale, to certain members of the Civil Defence Services where remuneration throughout the war has been related to Army rates of pay and where, therefore, the basis adopted for the settlement of remuneration, and the facilities available for negotiation, are not comparable with those normally existing in industry.
The Government have, accordingly, decided that a war gratuity shall be paid to whole-time members who have served under Civil Defence conditions for not less than six months from 3rd September, 1939, in the Civil Defence Services, the local authority Fire Guards, the Auxiliary Police, the Auxiliary Fire Service, and the National Fire Service, excluding, of course, those who were whole-time members of the former local authority or police fire brigades. Gratuity will also be paid to other ranks of the Royal Observer Corps and to the Auxiliary Coastguards. Special considerations apply to officers of the Royal Observer Corps, and this question must be separately examined. The gratuity will be payable on the same general principle as, but at three-fourths the rate of, that payable to the Armed Forces. The basic rate for men will thus be 7s. 6d. for each completed month of whole-time service from 3rd September, 1939, and for women 5s. a month. The gratuity, together with any post-war credits due in respect of Civil Defence service, will be credited to Post Office Savings Bank accounts after a date which will be determined later on the principles applied to the Armed Forces. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Home Security will notify local authorities shortly of the detailed arrangements. No application need be made at present by those who have left the Civil Defence service, and who may, nevertheless, be entitled to a gratuity.
The Government have also given careful consideration to claims which have been put forward on behalf of other classes of people. The Government have felt obliged to consider how far the principles governing their decision to give financial benefits already announced apply to these cases and, after giving the most sympathetic thought to the matter, they have


come to the conclusion that they cannot justify the extension of such benefits in any form to classes who are employed under the recognised conditions for the industry or profession to which they belong, and who receive an industrial or professional rate of pay.
The Government are aware that this decision, which they have reached only after the fullest consideration, will cause disappointment in some quarters, and, in particular, perhaps, in the case of the Women's Land Army, whose claims have, I know, made a special appeal to a number of hon. Members. I hope, however, that those who are disappointed will recognise the impossibility of extending concessions beyond those already indicated without opening the door to an unending succession of new and extended claims which could not be differentiated on any logical basis.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the fact that these Services are to be given a gratuity because their payment is related to the payment made in the Services, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that women in the Land Army, after their board and lodging has been deducted from their pay, are left with an amount equivalent to that received by the women in the Services? Can he, therefore, explain this discrimination?

The Prime Minister: Be it far from me to attempt to argue out, in detail, the very extensive and complicated provisions of the statement I have had the duty to make to the House.

Sir Hugh O'Neill: May I ask a question with regard to a point which the right hon. Gentleman did not make quite clear? Does the grant of gratuity to members of the Civil Defence Services apply to people who belonged to it for any period of six months after 3rd September, 1939?

The Prime Minister: I deprecate answering questions of detail like that without having an opportunity to consider them, because I might find that I was leting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exechequer in for an expenditure of millions by a mere casual answer. I could not run the risk of that.

Miss Ward: In view of the unfair discrimination against the Women's Land

Army—a very gallant body of women—will there be an opportunity for discussion of this whole question at a very early date?

Viscountess Astor: And before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if it is not true that the members of the Women's Land Army are underpaid, overworked, and very often badly housed? Will the right hon. Gentleman, in the largeness of his heart, consider that?

The Prime Minister: That is one of those sweeping generalisations which we have come to regard as characteristic of the Noble Lady. I hesitate to draw any deductions therefrom, but anyhow, there is no question whatever of our discussing the merits of the different proposals which have been made. I am clearly of the opinion that the House should find the time to debate this matter, but it is for the Leader of the House to say what is the most convenient way of fitting it in with the already crowded course of Government Business.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: Is the Prime Minister aware that the negative announcement he has made with regard to the Women's Land Army will cause very deep and bitter disappointment? They have been called an army, they are not recruited through the employment exchanges, they are required to live in hostels, they have been paid on lower terms than Civil Defence workers or the auxiliary services. They have many special merits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech"]—which should be taken into account.

The Prime Minister: When we listen to my hon. Friend's account of all the arguments in favour of making a payment to the Women's Land Army, we should realise how very strong must have been the arguments which led us to take the opposite view.

Mr. Granville: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, as I have a Question down—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must be aware that he cannot get up on a point of Order unless I sit down. I do not think we ought to pursue this any more. This is becoming a regular Debate. We must get on with our business.

NATIONAL EXPENDITURE

Second Report from the Select Committee, brought up and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]

BILL PRESENTED

AGRICULTURE (ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION) BILL

"to enable the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State to make contributions and establish centres for the purposes of research as to the practice of artificial insemination of livestock; to provide for the payment of grants out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of initial losses incurred in the operation of certain centres for the artificial insemination of cattle; and for purposes connected therewith"; presented by Mr. R. S. Hudson, supported by Mr. T. Johnston, Mr. Peake, Mr. Allan Chapman and Mr. Tom Williams; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed.—[Bill 31.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House.)—[Mr. Eden.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE

12.13 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I beg to move,
That on and after the thirteenth day of March, nineteen hundred and forty-five the Order of this House (Sittings of the House) of 29th November, 1944, shall cease to have effect, and during the remainder of the present Session, until this House otherwise orders—
(1) Standing Orders Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 14 shall have effect as if, for any reference to a time mentioned in the first column of the following table there were substituted a reference to the time respectively mentioned in the second column of that table.

TABLE.


Time mentioned in Standing Orders.
Time to be substituted.


2.45 p.m.
2.15 p.m.


3 p.m.
2.30 p.m.


3.45 p.m.
3.15 p.m.


7.30 p.m.
6.15 p.m.


9.30 p.m.
7.45 p.m.


10 p.m.
8.15 p.m.


11 p.m.
9.15 p.m.


11.30 p.m.
9.45 p.m.

(2) The following Order shall be substituted for Standing Order No. 2—

2. 'The House shall meet on Fridays at 11 a.m. for private business, petitions, orders of the day and notices of motion.

Standing Order No. 1 (as amended by this or any other Order of this House) shall apply to the sittings on Fridays with the omission of paragraph (1) thereof and with the substitution of references to 4 p.m. and 4.30 p.m. for references to 9.15 p.m. and 9.45 p.m.'

(3) Standing Order No. 25 shall apply—

(a) to sittings on days other than Fridays, with the substitution of references to half past seven and half past eight for the references to a quarter past eight and a quarter past nine; and
(b) to sittings on Fridays, with the substitution of references to a quarter past one and a quarter past two for the references to a quarter past eight and quarter past nine."

I originally informed the House that the Government would propose a Motion providing that the House should meet at 2.30 p.m. and sit until 9.30 or 10 p.m. As a result of some previous discussion on the question of the hours of sitting, I understood, however, that some Members favoured meeting at 2 p.m. and rising at 9 or 9.30 p.m. Last Tuesday, as the House will perhaps remember, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) suggested as a compromise that we should met at 2.15 p.m. and sit until 9 or 9.30 p.m.

I have had the opportunity of consulting opinions in various quarters of the House, and hon. Members will notice from the Motion on the Order Paper that we now suggest the House should meet at 2.15 p.m. and sit until 9.15 or 9.45 p.m. This will mean that the length of the Parliamentary day will be exactly the same as now. Of course, this is a matter to be decided by the House. I hope it will not be necessary for us to go to a Division, but if we should the Government Whips would not be put on. The House knows all the arguments in favour of changing our hours of sitting and I do not propose to repeat them. On the contrary, I hope that the proposal now on the Order Paper will commend itself generally to the House, and that we shall be able to reach a decision without a long Debate.

12.16 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Greenwood: We have had this matter under discussion on more occasions than one and I know there is a divergence of views about it. Those for whom I speak were prepared to agree to our sitting in the afternoon, though with some reluctance because of the difficulties of travel late


in the evening. But I would not like it to be thought that I, or any of my hon. Friends, would wish to impede legislation that ought to come before this House, and it is clear that if we set up Standing Committees, we must re-arrange the Sittings of the House as a whole. Those of us who in past years had experience of Standing Committee work upstairs, know how a Minister in charge of a Bill could always get substantial progress by threatening the Members that the Committee would have to sit in the afternoon when the House itself was sitting. That brought many recalcitrant Members to heel. I have used that technique myself on occasions with considerable effect.
I put to my right hon. Friend on Tuesday the suggestion of making the hours of sitting from 2.15 p.m. to 9 p.m., with 9.30 for the end of the Adjournment Motion. I am glad to think that there has been a considerable element of agreement on that proposal, and that the original Motion has been taken off the Order Paper and a new one put on making the hours 2.15 to 9.15, with 9.45 for the end of the Adjournment Motion. I think the extra quarter of an hour between 9.30 and 9.45 will really be of substantial importance, because transport is not getting any easier, either for Members of this House or for the large staff of the House, whose conditions have also to be considered, because many of them have not merely to remain here while the House is sitting, but to stay on afterwards. Members can, if they like, creep away at any time, and nobody can say them nay—not even Chief Whips if they are determined; but the staff must remain, and 9.45 would mean that most people would have reasonable prospects of getting home.
I think the House will approve the idea of going back, more or less, to the old Friday hours of sitting. I could never see the justification for sitting longer on Friday in war-time than we used to do in peace-time, more especially in view of the conditions of railway travelling. I think that to end at 4 o'clock would enable a considerable number of Members who have to go to their homes or their constituencies at the week-ends to get home that evening, whereas the rising of the House at 5.30 did debar a large number from getting home that night.
I have pleaded hard for the fullest rights of Private Members in this House, and I hope—it is an expression of hope—that the half-hour for the Adjournment will be continued in peace-time, whatever time the House rises. I think we have to continue it in war-time in view of the pressure from Members on all sides for an opportunity to raise matters on the Adjournment. I should like to support what the Leader of the House said, because I do not feel there is need for any long Debate on the question now before us. I think we have arrived at what seems to be a fair compromise. Yesterday evening I let it be known to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that, so far as I was concerned, I was prepared to accept it, and I hope that without unnecessary delay, the House will enable us to proceed to the next Business.

12.21 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: With all due deference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. A. Greenwood) I trust that it will not be taken as wrong if somebody else speaks as well as the two leaders, and if occasionally a back-bencher intervenes to look after his own welfare as well as the general welfare. I do not propose to divide against this Motion, although, if a Division were called, I should certainly vote against it. But I rise to enter my protest against what I regard as a wrong drift in our affairs. First, I object to this method of picking out the hours of sitting as a matter by itself. If we are to discuss the future arrangement of Business, there is not merely the question of hours to be discussed, but the whole range of Sittings from Monday to Friday. Let us look at the question as a whole, not picking out this isolated issue. I realise that many hon. Members have had little experience of Committee work. That is not their fault, because they have come into Parliament in the last five years. I understand that some 250 Members have entered this House since the war started. I often feel that more is made of the arguments about Committee work than is really warranted. I have sat on every kind of committee—local legislation Committees, Scottish Committees (and Committees dealing with English Bills, the lot—and I say frankly that only a small minority of Members serve on Committees.
It is nonsense to contend that Debates here would be better attended if there were a readjustment of the hours of Sittings. I would say to Members on this side who were here in pre-war days, as most of them were: "Carry your minds back to the period from round about 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock." There were empty benches, hardly a soul present, and then, occasionally, what I think were disgraceful scenes round about 11 o'clock, when the Government of the day wanted its majority and the white shirts entered the House to vote upon the issue though not having heard one word of the discussion. It has been said that Parliament is going back. I say frankly that in the last five years, curiously enough, Parliament has, in my view, risen in stature, and it has risen for two reasons. I never thought that in its conduct the House was bad, but I think the general conduct of the House in carrying out its work has improved out of all knowledge since I first became a Member. In the last five years attendance at the House is of a higher standard than prevailed in pre-war days—taking the Debates as a whole. Hon. Members attend and take an interest in what is being done.
I know that we shall go on with this experiment, I know the fetish about Committee work—although few attend the Committees—but I would point out that those who do attend the Committees will have to come here at half-past 10 in the morning and then go on with business in a House that sits till half-past 9, 10, 11 or 12 o'clock at night. In conditions like that, I say, Members will have cither to neglect the business at 11 o'clock in the morning or at 11 o'clock at night. Nobody can do both. I cannot say that I like the proposed change in hours. Before I came to the House the older Labour Members used to criticise the then hours of sitting, both from the platform and in the Press. The hours were foreign to their mode of life and conduct. I still take their view, and I should like us to go on with the present hours, but at the same time, I say that we shall be faced with issues which are much wider. Some hon. Members will argue that they have business to do and that their total income does not come from their membership of this House. I say to them, frankly, that Members will in the future have to make a choice when they come here between

attending to their own business, and the business of the House. I cannot see us avoiding that issue. My view may be wrong but I think the issue will come sooner or later. With the great increase in Parliamentary work that choice will have to be made.
while I allow this experiment to go on I cannot be taken as being altogether a consenting party, because I do not look with favour on our going back to the times when we did business at 12 o'clock at night, with Members having sat in the smoking-room for a great part of the time. Was it an edifying spectacle, or uplifting? That is where we are drifting. Last night we sat until after 9. On the first Sitting Day next week, if we are to do our business properly, we shall be sitting until at least 11 o'clock, and with the Committee work in the morning that will mean working from 11 to 11. I do not think that is good. A Committee might be set up to examine the problems of the hours of sitting. I would abolish the Friday Sittings. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) used to crack jokes about our Friday Sittings. I would abolish the Friday Sittings now and let Friday be devoted to the Committee work of the House. Make Committees meet that day and devote that day to Committee work. That is my outlook on the position. I do not propose to divide against the Motion but to let the matter go.

12.29 p.m.

Sir Ernest Shepperson: While I agree with the proposals in the Motion before us, I rise on behalf of certain of my fellow Members who, like myself, are immobile, to appeal to the Minister of War Transport to consider whether it is possible for arrangements to be made when the Sittings end at 9.30, for us to be conveyed short distances to our homes. At 9.30, when it is dark, it is absolutely impossible to obtain conveyances to take one for even a short distance. Taxis are not there. I have asked many taxi-drivers the reason, and some say it is on account of the shortage of petrol, others that there is a lack of spare parts, and others say there is a larger community now using taxis owing to increased spending-power among the people. I would respectfully suggest that two taxis or two cars should be made available to Members of this House between the hours of 9 and 10 p.m.—to


those Members who are immobile. For the last two or three years, during which I have attended this House and we have risen round about 6 o'clock, I have never had the opportunity of going to a theatre, a cinema or any entertainment, because of the impossibility of obtaining transport. I accept that as the penalty for being immobile, but I do make an appeal to the Minister of Transport to do something for those of us who are at this disadvantage now that there is to be an alteration in the hours of sitting.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Tinker: I would like to put a query to the Leader of the House with regard to the Adjournment. At present, from 6 to 6.30 is the time for the Adjournment, but if other business takes up that period we are still allowed a full half-hour. I am wondering whether this new arrangement will alter that. I shall be satisfied if I am assured that at the conclusion of other business a full half-hour will still be given to the Adjournment.

Mr. Eden: indicated assent.

12.33 p.m.

Mr. Sloan: This Motion is another very substantial argument in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, because I should be surprised if one Scottish Member, if speaking honestly, is in favour of it. I wonder if the House knows the inconvenience to which Scottish Members would be put if this proposal were agreed to. Many of us live 400 miles from this House, which is certainly an inconvenience, and one which we ought not to be afflicted with, because we have the very decent city of Edinburgh; but we meet here. We have either to travel here the day before or over-night. We have always had to do it, but that is no reason why we should be called upon to do it still. It takes me 14 hours to get to this House. The changing of the hours does not make any difference at all: it only means that we arrive in London in the morning and have to waste three or four hours in the City. I feel that when people are giving their time to public business they should not be called upon to face such an inconvenience.
I cannot understand why people wish to work on a night-shift when they can work on a day-shift. In my collieries the great difficulty is to find men willing to

work on night-shifts. We have had strikes on that score, but this House, evidently, prefers to work on a night-shift. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the hours of Sittings since the change was made have been very suitable to the Members of this House. It is true that they have not been suitable to those who work during the day before they come here, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) said, the time has arrived when people who give themselves to public business, such as is conducted in this House, should make their choice whether they devote the whole of their time to being Members of Parliament or are going to work in the City, as lawyers, or going to spend the forenoon as stockbrokers, etc., and then come here to play at legislation, because that is what it comes to in the end.
What is the position going to be on Fridays? The right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood) thinks he has squeezed a great concession out of the Government by our adjourning at 4 o'clock on Fridays. If we adjourn at that hour, people travelling to Edinburgh will have to wait from 4 o'clock until 10.15 for a train. It needs little imagination to see what a tremendous loss of time that is to Members who would be at a loose end during those hours, and, if there is a Division called, I shall certainly go to the Lobby to vote against this Motion.

12.36 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: I support the Motion, and if I had had my way the change would have been made last year and not this year. But I suggest to the Leader of the House that if the hours on Fridays are to be curtailed, it would have to be very carefully decided what Business to allot to Fridays, because the Sittings would be very short indeed. Although it is true that a Friday is as much a day of business as any other day, it will be a very much curtailed day and I suggest that, in considering future Business for Fridays, regard should be had to the fact that if Government and Front Bench spokesmen take up most of the time, there will be very little left for the rest of us. As one of those who is a faithful attender on a Friday, I hope we shall not be given Business to discuss on that day which ought to be given more extended consideration on some other day.

12.37 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: I know that the House wishes to get on to the next Business, and I will content myself with asking what is to happen to the "count" during dinner-time. Under the present arrangement it is not possible to have a "count" during luncheon, and I would like to have it made clear that it will not be possible to take a "count" during luncheon on a Friday, and during the dinner period in the rest of the week.

12.38 p.m.

Mr. Bowles: I do not think I can move an Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House is aware that if a Division takes place at 9.15—at present, at 6 o'clock—the half-hour Adjournment Debate is cut down by the time taken by the Division, which is a very serious matter from the point of view of Private Members' rights. For instance, in the Division last week, the Government had a majority of 413 to 0, and the result was that the Adjournment Debate was abandoned by the hon. Member who was proposing to raise a question. Nothing can be done about it now, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider making a proposal to the House, which I am sure would be acceptable, to allow the half-hour to run from the time the Division is over.

12.39 p.m.

Dr. Haden Guest: I support the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles), but in order to meet the important points put up by representatives from Scotland, could the Leader the House say anything about the possible development of air transport? There is no reason at all why Scottish Members should not come more rapidly to this country; and that applies also to Members from Northern Ireland and Northern England. This is a serious suggestion. I hope that air travel is going to replace those long and tedious railway journeys. Cannot some hope of this be held out to Members with constituencies in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Northern England?

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Eden: I would like to thank the House for the proposals made, and I think the feeling is that hon. Members would like to come to a decision now. One or two comments are necessary in answer to the points raised. I think it

is clear that the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Sir E. Shepperson) is one which the House would like to consider. I would propose that my hon. Friend and his colleagues should have a word with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport and see what arrangements can be made.

Mr. Buchanan: I would like to point out that if we are to be here on Fridays until 9.30, our last train might be missed, and I am wondering whether any arrangement could be made in view of this.

Mr. Eden: It will be four o'clock on Fridays.

Mr. Buchanan: With the best will in the world, a man who wants to visit his division in Scotland has to go there some Fridays. It is impossible for a Scottish Member, under this new arrangement, to get to his division on a Friday unless some rearrangement is made.

Mr. Eden: I think the hon. Member will realise that that is a different request. I do not think we could cater for trains. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) made some reference to the possible effect of these changes on the attendance and work of the House. I hope he is wrong, but only experience will show us. We are not making any immutable arrangement now, and if it cannot be worked it will have to be re-examined. The point about our Parliament is that we are able to do these things. With regard to the other questions about Friday, we are really reverting to the old pre-war programme, which I think is generally convenient.

Mr. A. Bevan: But we did not have Public Business on a Friday.

Mr. Eden: We did sometimes, but I will bear the point in mind. I do not think there are any other points except the one regarding air transport. That seems to me to be more a post-war than a present-day arrangement. After the war I hope it will be possible for us all to have the advantage of it, even if we do not go to Scotland.

Mr. Woodburn: There is one hon. Member who must travel by air in order to get to his constituency in time, and I think it is most unfair that air travel is not regarded in the same way as railway


travel, and that he is compelled to pay the extra fare out of his own packet.

Mr. Eden: That problem would arise whatever hours we sat. The question as to the half-hour Adjournment Debate does not arise particularly from the alteration of hours, and is a matter which will have to be considered apart from the question of what hours we sit.

Question put, and agreed to.

Ordered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

12.43 p.m.

The Minister of National Insurance (Sir William Jowitt): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is the second of the Measures foreshadowed in the recent White Paper on Social Insurance. The first, which is now on the Statute Book, was the machinery Bill setting up the new Ministry and giving power to transfer to it certain functions by Order in Council. This is very different. This is a Bill which provides that help shall be given from the Exchequer for over 2,500,000 families who have more than one child. In the broadest and briefest introductory outline, the scheme is that there shall be provided a sum of 5s. for every child except the first in any family; that it shall apply to children so long as they are below the school-leaving age, with certain extensions to which I will refer presently; it applies to children living in this country, one of whose parents, at any rate, lives in this country, too; it is not payable to the authorities administering institutions; it is payable to parents; and there is to be no duplication with allowances under existing insurance schemes, and regulations may provide that there shall be no duplication with Service or other children's allowances. Lastly—and on this point a difference of opinion arises—the 5s. is, according to the Bill, to belong to the father but may be encashed either by the father or the mother. In my observations I want to say something on each of these topics.

Mr. Buchanan: Does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to deal with duplication?

Sir W. Jowitt: Certainly. Our primary object in introducing this Bill is to ease the financial burden which, at the present time, oppresses parents with large families, and so promote the health and well-being of their children. Secondly, we hope that by this Bill we shall do something to remove those handicaps which, by reason of poverty, sometimes make a birth a cause for regret rather than a cause for rejoicing, as it ought to be. It may be said, "If you are confronted with serious population problems why do you not raise the rates to such an extent as to encourage people to have more children?" My answer is that this is not intended to be an answer to the complex problem which is now engaging the attention of the Royal Commission over which my Noble Friend the Lord Chancellor is presiding. It is obvious that we cannot pronounce on any of these topics unless and until we have had the Report of that Commission.
I feel myself that if we are aiming at that family allowances can, at their very best, be merely a small and partial aid to that end. After all, under any wage system as I conceive it, whether in a Capitalist or Socialist society, the remuneration which the worker gets must depend upon the services which he renders. It cannot depend upon the size of his family. The rate for the job must be the same, whether the man is a bachelor, or has one child, or has a large family. The needs of a father of a large family if he is to keep his children in a decent state and in health must obviously be very different from the needs of a man without children. What a blessing a Bill like this would have been to the Rev. Mr. Quiverful who was, as the House will remember, Rector of Puddingdale, in the Barchester novels, and who had a family of fourteen children and found it impossible, as he described it, on his small income to give them, with decency, the common necessities of life. And there was another reverend gentleman—the Vicar of Wakefield, who had six children and who was
ever of opinion that the honest man who married and brought up a large family, did more service than he who continued single, and only talked of population.
That is a robust and vigorous sentiment which we have come to identify with


Wakefield. I want to explain that our object in this Bill is not to take over the responsibility of parents or, indeed, to filch from parents in the smallest degree the responsibility which must remain theirs. We want to help them to discharge that obligation as they would desire. I beg the House not to consider this Bill in isolation but in its complete setting, with ante-natal services, maternity services, child welfare, school meals and National Health services. Still, after we have made every allowance for those schemes, not only as they are to-day but as we want to see them developed, there remains a gap, and that gap can be filled only by cash payments, to be made without a contribution and without a means test, by the Exchequer, in order that children of all sections of the community may have that equal opportunity which we all desire.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), in the Report which he made upon Social Services, went into this matter and recommended that there should be paid an average of 8s. in cash, or in kind, for every child in the family, except the first. The 8s. was arrived at by taking 9s. as the provisional post-war cost of maintaining a child and deducting 1s. as being an estimate of the value of the existing services.

Sir William Beveridge: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that I proposed 8s. in cash or in kind. I am not aware that I ever proposed that. I thought I proposed 8s. in cash, and I assumed that there would be 1s. in kind as well.

Sir W. Jowitt: The hon. Member is such a ready writer and writes so largely that I sometimes think he forgets what he writes. I would ask him to refer to Paragraph 421 of his Report, where the concluding words say:
But there may prove to be good reasons for a considerable extension of provision in kind, and this may affect differently the cash allowance required at different ages. It is not possible here to do more than indicate at 8s. per week, the average additional allowance proposed in cash or in kind.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: Would the Minister refer to Paragraph 232?

Sir W. Jowitt: I will do so, though I did not intend to do so. That paragraph states that the 8s. was arrived at by taking 9s. as the provisional post-war cost of maintaining a child and deducting 1s. as

the estimated value of the existing services. The Report also states in the plainest terms—and this is often forgotten—that if provision in kind were to be extended beyond the present scale then the cash allowances should be reduced. In case of the reference being needed, it will be found in Paragraph 425. It is satisfactory to us to realise that great minds think alike or, at any rate, along the same lines. We have, therefore, decided to give a cash allowance of 5s., and also to give a great increase of meals and milk, which are to be free for all children in grant-aided schools. The cost of that is very considerable. When the scheme for meals and milk is fully developed it will cost £60,000,000 per annum, which exceeds the estimated cost of these family allowances, which is £57,000,000. So, I want to point out that cutting down the proposed 8s. to 5s. is not done on the ground of saving. If we take 5s. and these added allowances in kind the actual cost is substantially more than the 8s. which was proposed.

Dr. Haden Guest: Could my right hon. and learned Friend say at what date the milk and meals allowances will come into operation?

Sir W. Jowitt: I was just coming to that, but I cannot say all these things at the same moment. It is quite true that some time must elapse before the services can become complete. I have not the Scottish statistics with me, but as regards England and Wales milk is available, at the present time, in 27,000 out of 28,000 schools, and there are 14,000 canteens which are now serving 19,000 out of 28,000 schools. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is naturally very keen to complete this scheme as soon as he can. He is in the very fortunate position of having the "All clear" from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, while my right hon. Friend the Minster of Labour has given him a high priority so far as labour is concerned. He has those two assets. We all know how keen my right hon. Friend is on this scheme, and although I am not going to promise a date, nor conceal from the House that in present circumstances it must take some time, there is no reason to suppose that the time will be unduly long. I know it is said, about school meals, that the cost of them, to a considerable extent, goes in overheads,


and that these overheads are to some extent wasted because there are fires in the schools and fires in the homes. It is also said that there are difficulties regarding the holidays, week-ends and so on; but on the whole the advantages of this scheme, in my view, far outweigh the disadvantages.
I would like to point out that these allowances will be available to all children, including the eldest. I believe that the physical and educational advantages which come to children from having their meals at school are very great indeed, and also that the lessening of a mother's work is very important, although, of course, it depends upon whether parents avail themselves of this opportunity or not. I dislike intensely the snobbish distinction between those who get their milk free and those who pay for it. Under this system there is less chance of diversion from the children to other and less worthy purposes. Finally—and this is not an unimportant consideration—allowances in kind are not subject to Income Tax. This scheme of family allowances, therefore, should not be considered as being simply 5s. as against 8s. It is 5s. with the vastly extended services in kind as opposed to the proposed 8s.
Schemes of this character are well known abroad. Even before the last war there were certain sectional and partial schemes in operation. I think I am right in saying that New Zealand was the first country to have a nation-wide scheme of this kind. In 1926 New Zealand introduced a scheme whereby they paid 2s. a week after the first two children so long as the family income was under a specified amount. It may be an omen for the future here that family allowances Acts in New Zealand have been rather like Workmen's Compensation Acts in this country—they have succeeded each other with considerable rapidity. Since 1926 there have been seven Acts in New Zealand, and at the present time there 10s. is being paid for each child so long as the family income, apart from allowances, does not exceed £5 10s. a week. If the income rises beyond that figure the family allowance is proportionately abated. Australia, in 1941, passed a scheme providing 5s. a week for each child in the family except the first; and Eire, in 1944, a scheme providing 2s. 6d. a week for each child after

the first two. Canada passed an Act in 1944, to come into operation in 1945, under which each child is to receive from 5 to 8 dollars a month according to the age of the child, but there is a deduction after the fourth child.

Sir Frank Sanderson: In the case of New Zealand, is not the allowance payable to the mother?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, I am coming to that, too.

Captain Prescott: Is the 10s. referred to cash or the value of 10s.?

Sir W. Jowitt: No, cash.

Captain Prescott: With kind on top?

Sir W. Jowitt: No. In regard to Europe, going from Spain to Russia, and Finland to Italy, we find schemes varying in all sorts of ways, some paying cash allowances, some kind and some both. Some pay with the exception of the first and second children, and in one case only after the fourth. Some are plainly to encourage large families. In Russia, when they get to the third child, they get a grant of 400 roubles, but when they come to the eleventh child they get 5,000 roubles. In Spain, if they have two children they get 40 pesetas a month. When they get to 12 it rises to 1,080.
I pass now to some of the main provisions of the Bill. I am afraid it is rather complicated, but, with its wide sweep and intimate concern to so many families, that is inevitable. Families are not all very simple. The majority, no doubt, marry, have children and live happily ever afterwards, but I have to consider the case of widows and widowers, those separated, those divorced, those deserted, those who re-marry, sometimes more than once, and those who bring up other people's children. In all these complicated circumstances we must do our best to make sure that the allowance goes to the right person. The age of the children under the scheme is the school-leaving age, whatever that may be from time to time, or, if the children remain at school after the school-leaving age or are apprentices, the allowances go on till 31st July following the 16th birthday.
We have to define the family, if only because we are omitting the first child. We have taken as our test the test of blood. The parents' claim prevails over


the claim of anyone else so long as the child is living with them, or, if it is not living with them, if they are contributing at least 5s. a week towards its upkeep. If the child is neither living with its parents nor are they contributing 5s. a week we have to consider who is the maintainer. There may be several people who contribute towards the cost of the child, but there can be only one maintainer and, broadly speaking, the maintainer is he who contributes the most. There will be exceptional cases. Parents permanently separated may have children—we ignore those temporarily separated—and disputes may arise as to the family in which the children are to be incorporated. If the parents cannot agree, the Minister has to decide. Illegitimate children are included. They normally go, of course, with the mother. The father has no parental rights. If the child is living with the mother or the mother is paying 5s. towards the keep of the child, the child falls into the mother's family. But if the mother is not living with the child nor contributing 5s. we again have to look for the maintainer. Amongst the various maintainers may be the father, but he has no parental rights.

Viscountess Astor: Suppose the woman goes on having illegitimate children.

Sir W. Jowitt: The children would be her family and for every child except the first she would get the allowance. It is not to be paid to the authorities of institutions where children are cared for. It is payable to families with children. It is payable in respect of those homes where the responsibility of parenthood may be proving a burden. Of course, if the child is in a home or a hospital, no matter how long it may be there, we continue to pay the parent, because we think it is just in those cases that it is most important that the parental tie should be preserved. Where a child is taken away from the legal custody of the parents and is put into the care of a local authority or an approved school, we do not pay to the parents in respect of the child. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not?"] I do not see any earthly reason why we should. The parents, on hypothesis, have neglected the child, which is taken away from them and brought up at someone else's cost. But if the child is

in a home or a hospital we continue to pay the parent.

Mr. Buchanan: Frequently it is not both parents who treat their children badly but one, sometimes the father and sometimes the mother. The court takes the children away not merely because of neglect but because of constant fighting between the parents. I feel that, if we take away the 5s., we may tend to induce the court not to put the child away. I think that, if the court finds that one parent is not neglecting the child, we should not necessarily take it away.

Sir W. Jowitt: I will certainly consider that. If I ever had to adjudicate on such a matter I should be very reluctant to remove a child from the parent's control.

Major Sir Derrick Gunston: If the child is in a residential home, shall we continue to pay the 5s.?

Sir W. Jowitt: So long as the parents still have the legal custody of the child, no matter what sort of institution it may be, we continue to pay the parents. They have not got the expense of the child, yet it may make a difference in regard to visiting it or sending presents. We want to keep the parental tie if we can.
Now I come to a matter of some controversy, the question of father or mother. I have no doubt at all that we must decide this one way or the other. It is no good leaving the matter obscure and ambiguous. Think of the task of a bench of magistrates who, without any guidance from us, have to decide as between two perfectly respectable parents whether the father or the mother is to have the money. Moreover, we cannot have claims from two parties. We may make it father or mother, but we must make it one of them. I think there is no insuperable difficulty to making it either. I admit that opinions may differ about the answer to the question and I will not pretend that those who had to consider it instantly came, all with one voice, to the conclusion that the answer we have selected is the right one. I think I can best help the House by stating quite impartially some of the reasons which seem to bear on both sides.
The conclusion that we have come to in the Bill is that the money should belong to the father but that either parent should be able to encash it. That has this merit, that it enables the normal family to decide for themselves what they want to do, and


it really will not matter very much in a happy family what is done. After all, the father is generally the breadwinner. He brings the money in and hands it over, or some of it, to the mother. Whether he hands it all over or only some of it depends, I suppose, on the father, and a bit on the mother, too, but the point is that he can, if he likes, only hand over a part and, even if we pay the family allowances to the wife, the husband can, if he is so minded, deduct from the amount that he normally hands over the amount of the allowance, so in that sense the husband has the last word. I can imagine another sense in which the wife will get the last word. Then we must remember that under the Workmen's Compensation Acts the husband gets the money for the first child and the other children. He gets the money under the Unemployment Insurance Acts, and under the new scheme, when he is sick or unemployed, he will get the money for the first child. He pays the tax, because the wife's income and the husband's have to be aggregated. It may be that in some working class homes, if we decide to pay the mother, and the father afterwards gets a bill for tax on the money paid to the mother, he may not like it very much, but that, of course, is bound to be. Then the husband is the spouse who is primarily liable for the maintenance of the child. It is true that under the Poor Law the wife is liable if she has a separate estate. Whereas the husband is absolutely liable, the wife is only conditionally liable. These considerations perhaps tend rather in favour of the father.
On the other hand, let us look at some of the mother's points. She could fairly point to the present arrangement with regard to maternity benefit. Although payable by reason of the husband's contributions it is the mother's benefit and it is stated in express terms to be the mother's benefit. Look at Section 60 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, which follows the Act of 1913, and it will be seen that she alone can give a good discharge for the money. The husband can only give a discharge if he is authorised by her, and the Act expressly provides that, if he receives the money, he is bound to hand it over to her. There is another consideration. I have no doubt that, speaking of the ordinary run of

families, the mother knows better how to spend the money or what the money should be spent on than the father.
There is one other point. In arguments on this matter, there used to be a fear expressed that if you pay family allowances they might be taken into consideration in fixing wage rates. The risk of that is obviously less if you pay the mother than if you pay the father. Then, of course, there are some people in this House who are anxious for payment to the mother because they think it will increase and improve the status of motherhood. It seems to me obvious that, of all the crafts, mothercraft is the noblest by far, the most important, and, I should think, by far the most exacting.

Viscountess Astor: And the least recognised.

Sir W. Jowitt: I should think that amongst sensible people these facts are well recognised. If people are so stupid as not to realise the status of motherhood and all that it means to this country, I very much doubt if they will recognise it because you pay an extra five shillings. But I know that this view is strongly felt. I saw a letter the other day in the paper from the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who has done so much to bring about this reform. She said that, as we had drafted our Bill, it looked as though it gave colour to the view that we were regarding the wife as being a mere append age of the husband. I have never met any sensible person—I have never met any sensible husband, at any rate, who regards his wife as a mere appendage—

Viscountess Astor: Any sensible husband.

Sir W. Jowitt: If he is not a sensible husband, and commits one of the minor peccadillos of married life, and receives a well-merited rebuke from his wife, then, less than ever, does he regard his wife as a mere appendage. I have known cases where the wife was a mere appendage of the husband. Equally, I have known cases where the husband was a mere appendage of the wife. Speaking for myself, I am not a feminist. I am not a masculinist, if there is such a word. I am an equalitarian. These arguments about status and the rest impress me much less than some of the other arguments.

Mr. Summers: Are the payments made in respect of evacuee families, paid to the father or the mother in the household?

Sir W. Jowitt: They are paid to the mother. Let us look at the precedents outside this country. New Zealand pays to the mother. Australia pays to the mother. I have never heard of any legal snags or difficulties arising, and, so far as I know, statesmen in those countries do not want to alter the system. Eire pays the father.

Viscountess Astor: It would.

Sir W. Jowitt: The Dominion of Canada leaves each of the Provinces to decide this matter for themselves. So far as foreign countries are concerned, there are precedents either way. Russia pays the mother. I would suggest that we are really in no way bound by precedents. We must make up our own minds on whatever lines we think best suits our own domestic arrangements.
Strong views are held on this matter in all parties—I think unnecessarily strong views. The Government have decided that the right course in the circumstances is to leave this matter to a free vote of the House. Before the House votes on the question at the proper time, which, I suppose, will be on the Committee stage, it is desirable that it should have the benefit of the advice of the Attorney-General lest there are some legal pitfalls and difficulties of which I am not aware. I would only like, if the House decides in favour of the payment to the mother, to be perfectly clear on three points. First, the House must realise that, so far as Income Tax is exigible on the amount, it will be payable by the father.

Miss Rathbone: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether it will make any difference? Is not the law that for purposes of Income Tax, the incomes of the father and mother have to be added together?

Sir W. Jowitt: That is a correct statement of the law, but there are a good many working-class homes where that statement of the law is not realised. That is why I pointed it out in the plainest terms. I do not think there is any difference between us on these points. The second point is this. It must not be

thought that by paying the mother we relieve the father from the obvious duty, morally and by law, to maintain his children. We are not letting the father get away with the idea that, as the mother is getting the money, he is quit of his responsibilities. He, of course, remains liable for the maintenance of his children. Third, when I come on the question of duplication, which I promised to speak about, there must be no dodging the issue by saying that this is not a duplication because one payment is made to the husband and another to the wife. Obviously, for that purpose we must treat them as one. Subject to these three points—and I gather that the hon. Lady will concede them at once—we shall propose to leave this matter, when we get to the Committee stage, to a free vote. There may be a slight difficulty for me because, if the decision is carried in favour of the mother, it may require rather substantial modifications in later passages of the Bill, but we can get over that if there is a short interval after the decision in order to enable me to table the necessary Amendments.

Miss Rathbone: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make clear that he sees no legal and administrative difficulties in the payment to the mother?

Sir W. Jowitt: I see none, but I am not prejudging what the Attorney-General may say. He will have time to look into this matter carefully, but, as far as I am aware, I see none. I can see great administrative difficulties if you are not going to pay the father in respect of the first child. Whichever is decided, whether it is decided to pay the father or the mother in the normal case, there will be exceptional cases. You may have a case where the mother is not a fit person to be entrusted with the money and the father is a respectable person who should be entrusted with it; and vice versa. All women are not angels and all men are not devils; and the same is true the other way. We must have some arrangements for diversion in exceptional cases. What machinery shall we have for that? In Australia, it is done by the Minister departmentally. I do not feel very strongly about this, but I should prefer not to have that duty. The making of a decision to take the money from the normal recipient is a decision of character. You take away the money because the person


is not fit to be entrusted with it, and if you make a decision of that sort the person ought to have the chance to go before the justices and be seen in the flesh. If it is done by the Minister departmentally, he does not see the people himself and has simply to approve what an official has done.

Miss Rathbone: Why should not the decision be taken by the Minister and a right of appeal given to the person concerned, in view of the fact that we do not want to encourage law actions between parents?

Sir W. Jowitt: I do not very much like that. I do not think it is desirable that the Minister should first decide and then have an appeal to the justices. I would rather have the applicant go to the justices first of all. This is a part of the justices' purisdiction. We passed an Act to deal with this very matter, which is embodied in this Bill, and it excludes the general public from the court and limits the right of the Press to report these cases.

Mr. Buchanan: I am rather in favour of following the example of widows' pensions, where the Minister's officials decide, and, in the event of a refusal, the case goes to a body which is usually a county court judge, or, in Scotland, the sheriff. I do not want to see these cases go to the ordinary courts, because they are usually regarded as criminal courts. I suggest, that in this matter the right hon. and learned Gentleman should make his mind a little fluid about procedure.

Sir W. Jowitt: I have said that I do not attach very great importance to it, and I shall have an open mind in Committee. I want to come to the best conclusion I can, but I do not like the Minister deciding this matter depart-mentally, without giving the party a chance of being seen and heard, in a matter which vitally affects character.
Now I come to non-duplication. The general principle is stated plainly enough in the White Paper that there will be no duplication with allowances payable under other schemes. There is no difficulty in the application of this principle to allowances paid in respect of children under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, Unemployment Insurance Acts, and to widows under the Contributory Pensions

Act, or for children who receive an orphan's pension under that Act. In the first three cases, the allowances are less than or are no more than the allowances which will be payable under the Bill. It is therefore provided that they shall not be payable for all children for whom an allowance has been awarded under the Bill. As regards the last type of case, the orphans receive a pension of 7s. 6d. a week. This amount is to be increased to 12s. It is, obviously, more convenient that this payment should be made in one sum from one source at one time, and not partly as family allowance and partly otherwise. For this reason, they are excluded from the Bill, and will come wholly under the main Insurance Bill.
When we come to the Armed Forces and war pensioners, whether Service or civilian, and to the police and the fire service, the position as regards allowances becomes very complex. Some allowances are greater and others are less than those payable under the Bill. The passage into law of the Bill will make it necessary to review the position in detail. The necessary review will be made and completed before the Bill is brought into force. In the meantime, the Bill has been so drawn as not to prejudice the result of the review, which may arrive at its conclusions on the basis that family allowances under the Bill are to be payable, or may arrive at its conclusions on the basis that family allowances under the Bill are not to be payable. The Regulation-making power of the Minister will be exercised in accordance with those conclusions. Now, a word about residence and nationality.

Mr. Buchanan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with duplication in the case of the widow. Is he still giving the widow an extra 5s.?

Sir W. Jowitt: No, Sir. That was in the first group, workmen's compensation and unemployment insurance, and payment to the widow under the Contributory Pensions Act. She gets 5s. for the first child and 3s. each for subsequent children. We do not propose to pay the 5s. in addition to the 3s. The Bill is drawn on the basis that she gets her 5s. so she will lose her 3s. Have I made that quite plain?

Mr. Buchanan: No.

Sir W. Jowitt: The widow receives 5s. for the first child. The Bill does not deal


with the first child. She gets 3s. for each child thereafter. Under the Bill she will lose 3s. for the second child, and consequently she will get 5s.

Mr. Buchanan: She gets 2s. extra?

Sir W. Jowitt: Yes, she gets 2s. extra. I was going to say something about residence and nationality. The Bill does not include children living outside this country. As to the parents, if the father is a British subject born in Great Britain and he or the mother lives here, the allowance is payable to them. If there is only one parent and that parent fulfils those qualifications, then the allowance is again payable automatically. Where the parent, though British, was not born in this country, or a much stronger case, the parent is a foreigner, we propose to leave it to the Regulations to decide. There will be such an infinite variety of conditions here that we think it is better to take power to deal with the matter by Regulation rather than endeavour to cope with it in the Bill itself. Equally, by Regulation we must deal with the question as to what happens when the parents go abroad leaving the children here, and what is to happen during the temporary absence of parents or child. I have already been speaking too long but that is partly the fault of the House in asking questions.

Sir D. Gunston: What is to be done in the case of refugees who are working in this country, but have not been able to be naturalised?

Sir W. Jowitt: That also would be subject matter for Regulations. People are to get money from the British taxpayer. Suppose a refugee comes to this country with a large number of children; is it right or fair that he should immediately start to draw money for every child except the first, out of the British Treasury? I am not saying "Yes" or "No" but that this is a matter which we shall have to look at closely and decide what is right. The variety of circumstances is too great to endeavour to put everything into the Bill. The House must give me latitude. I shall have to learn by experience, and I have no doubt that I shall have to amend the Regulations and so get things right. I do not like to be entrusted with a large Regulation-making power, but I hope that the House will entrust me with that power in this matter.
I am not going to say anything about the machinery for making payments and dealing with arrears. Those are small matters, and are Committee points. There are two outstanding matters, and the first is in regard to claims for allowances. The principle of the Bill is that the claim should be made to the Minister, who shall allow or disallow, and then there is an appeal to referees in the event of a decision of disallowance. The referees have the power to state a case for the opinion of the court. Therefore on a difficult point of law you can go to the courts and get the matter decided. That is broadly speaking the system of the Contributory Pensions Act, which I think has worked fairly well.

Mr. Buchanan: We do not go to the courts.

Sir W. Jowitt: No, while under my scheme you can go to the courts. Under the scheme of the Bill, I have incorporated the relevant Section of the Arbitration Act. I think it is Section 9. It enables the case to go to the courts. A word about reciprocal arrangements. The Bill provides for reciprocal arrangements with other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire. Rather a good illustration is that of Northern Ireland, who have indicated to us that they intend to put forward a Bill very much on the lines of our Bill here. If that is done, we shall be able to make an easy reciprocal arrangement with Northern Ireland, making it a matter of indifference whether a birth is registered here or there, or where the children are. I hope that we shall be able to bring about reciprocal arrangements with other places.
Now for a word about the appointed day. Hon. Members will see that Clause 27 provides that the Bill is to come into force on the appointed day and that different days may be appointed for different purposes. I am sure to be asked, "When will the appointed day be?" All we have said at the moment is that it will be after the war. It is true that on the face of the Bill it is for the Minister to say, but obviously in a matter of this importance the question will have to engage the attention of the War Cabinet. I am not prepared to-day to say anything more than that or to attempt to define what is meant by "the war." I cannot do it. I should like to point out that in Clause 27 there is power to appoint days for different purposes. There is a very great deal of pre-


paratory work to be done here, and I expect I shall receive applications from 2,500,000 families, in respect of 4,400,000 children. What I want to do, even before the Bill comes into force is to try and get machinery in order and everything all taped up so that when it is decided to start the payments we may at once be able to make them. That is a very big task. It is going to involve getting a staff together and accommodation for the staff, getting an organisation and drafting the necessary Regulations and claim forms and so on. It is obvious that it could not be done without taking some time and that we could not start payments in the near future. If the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament I shall, without waiting for the date when the payment is to become operative, try to get everything ready in that way.
I have told the House, on the basis of the school leaving age being 15, that the cost is estimated to be £57,000,000 per annum and that administration costs are estimated at an extra £2,000,000. I do not claim that the scheme is perfect or final. I admit frankly that it is experimental. When it is working we shall no doubt see what development is necessary and how we can improve it. Therefore, I suggest to the House that the importance of the Bill is not merely in what it contains but lies in the fact that it is a new departure in developing the health and wellbeing of what is by far our greatest asset, the children of this country.

1.41 p.m.

Miss Rathbone: I am honoured, as a mere Back Bencher, in being allowed by you, Sir, to initiate the Debate on the very interesting statement we have just heard from my right hon. and learned Friend. I know that I owe that honour to the fact that I am, generally, regarded as the grandmother of this proposal, though for the past 25 years not I alone, but many others, and as many men as women, have been working at it. I think this is, in principle, indeed a very great Measure. It is great, because it introduces, not merely as will the National Insurance Bill which we hope is to follow it, the development of an old principle, but a momentous new principle. For the first time, it proposes that the State should make a money contribution, not

merely to the bringing of children into the world and their education, but really for maintaining them. By so doing it remedies what I have always considered the fundamental injustice of excluding children from all share of their own in the national income, although children and their mothers together constitute between one-third and one-half of the entire population. It recognises that they have a claim to payment of money from the State.
Yet this recognition comes in so strange a form that it seems actually to contradict rather than to affirm that very principle. I shall concentrate my remarks very largely on the question of the recipient of the allowance. I know that many hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself, think that I exaggerate its importance. I concentrate upon it because it is of immense importance. The proposal, in the way it is stated in the Bill, will not raise the status of motherhood but will actually lower it. It does so, whatever people may say, because it treats the wife as a mere appendage, which means literally a hanger on, of her husband, and gives her a very strong motive for going out to work, however much the children under her care require her presence, because then her wages will be legally her own, rather than continuing at home to bear more children. Secondly, it is the one defect in the Bill which, if not changed now, will probably prove unchangeable later. Men will take it quite for granted if the payment is made to the mother now, as they do in Australia and New Zealand, and as a reasonable provision. They will resent a change later, because it will seem to be a reflection on their use of the allowance.
The second reason, as the Minister has pointed out, is that the Bill will affect, in the first place, more than 2,500,000 parents, and to change the payee in such a vast number of cases will give rise to very considerable administrative difficulties. These are the reasons why the proposal seems to me so immensely important. The Bill, it is true, has other serious defects. The amount of the allowance is too small, but I leave the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) to deal with that, as I am sure he will. The age limit is too low.


The maximum is 16 if the child is still at school, whereas Income Tax rebate is allowed to continue, while the child is at university or otherwise receiving full-term education up to the age of 21 at least. Also, certain large classes which the Minister has mentioned, and which I will not discuss, are, or may be, excluded from the benefits of the Bill, although as taxpayers they have to pay for them. All that can, and I am certain, will, be changed by future legislation or regulation. The trend of the birth rate will force a change. As the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed once put it, by 1961 we shall be in a panic about the population of this country. Long before 1961, whatever Government is in power will have been forced to realise the danger of the steep decline in population, and to provide a very much more generous scheme of family allowances than anything contemplated under this Bill. But the proposal of the Bill will affect the question of the future of the birth rate, and many other things.
What are the proposals? I do not think, in spite of the very lucid explanation of my right hon. and learned Friend, that all Members are quite clear about them. In the words of the Bill, where the man and wife are living together the allowance will belong to the man, and that will be so even if the wife earns every penny of the income. If the man is a rotter or a total invalid and the wife is sole wage-earner, the allowance belongs to the man. It belongs to him if the children are hers by a first marriage. It belongs to him if they are illegitimate children. I think I am right in saying that even if the children live with some other relative, if one or the other parent contributes 5s. to their support, he will be able to count the children as his and claim the allowance, though he may not have seen them, or even not know their Christian names. Further, this extraordinary arrangement can only be changed by appeal to the court, as was pointed out. Several Members have anticipated our objections to that by their questions. But how many women will dare to appeal to the court? The worse the husband is the less will the wife dare to do so. Also, the court can only name the father or the mother or the husband or wife to the exclusion of the other as payee. The court cannot nominate someone else, say an

elder sister or aunt who may be living in the family and caring for the children.
Consider how that amazing proposal will work out. Probably the great majority of husbands will hand over the allowance to their wives. Why should they bother to go to the Post Office to cash it? The great majority of fathers are, no doubt, kindly, responsible men and have responsible, decent wives. But suppose we consider the proportion of husbands in the case of whom difficulty may arise. Let us say, for the sake of argument, that it is one in ten where there is a difficulty. That, out of 2,600,000 is 260,000. Say there is only one bad husband in 100. That would still be 26,000, quite a considerable number. Of that minority in which difficulty will arise there will be some cases of men who will not let the wife draw the money because they know she is thriftless, incompetent or quite unsuitable to draw it and, therefore, they rightly want her not to draw it. But they cannot nominate anyone else but themselves to draw it. Therefore, the man has to draw it if the wife is unfit. But among the minority will be greedy or selfish men who will hold on to the money. The wife is allowed, under the Bill, to draw it, but obviously only if the man consents, because the order comes to him, and it belongs to him, so that he will hold on to it if he wants to do so.
Is that not a really amazing proposal, and what is the excuse for it? What is the reason? The explanation given in the White Paper is that the man is normally the head of the household. Yes, normally, but the Bill gives him the money even if the wife is the sole provider. Even otherwise, where the husband does provide the housekeeping money, what does the wife do? She merely risks her life to bring the children into the world, often with agonising pain, and in the vast majority of working-class homes, she spends her days and hours, as they say in my part of the world, "All the hours God makes," in washing and cleaning for the children, clothing them and feeding them—all the hours of the day and night. School holidays and the week-ends bring her no remission, no time off; they actually increase the burden on the working-class mother. All that is to go for nothing, because the law holds that the man is normally the wage earner.
Again, it is argued that the man should have the money because the law holds


him responsible for the children's maintenance. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that argument. Suppose there is evidence that the children are neglected, starved or ill-treated. Is it not the almost invariable custom that both parents are brought before the court? Only this morning there was a question about how many cases of cruelty and neglect had been heard before the courts. It turned out that there were more cases of women than men. No doubt, the reason is that the person in charge of the children is the wife. She is most likely to be held to be the person at fault by whoever brings the case. So the law does not really hold the man responsible. Again, if the wife earns the money and the man has nothing, then the wife is held legally responsible for the upkeep of the children. Actually, public opinion holds her much more responsible than the man. It considers, quite rightly, that looking after children is the mother's job. Why, in Heaven's name, not recognise that and stimulate the mother to do her job well, by State recognition?
The last defence is that it will not make any real difference; that if the man is greedy or selfish he will appropriate the money anyhow, and that if it does not come to him he will merely deduct that amount from what he allows his wife. That shows very little knowledge of human nature. For one man who is really greedy and unscrupulous there are half a dozen who are merely weak, and creatures of habit, who hold on to what is given to them. If the money is given to the mother, and if they know that the law regards it as the child's property, or the mother's property to be spent for the child, that will help them to realise that the State recognises the status of motherhood. In the majority of cases they will let her have it without decreasing the amount she receives from their income.
It is not as though there were no precedents. My right hon. and learned Friend has admitted some, and I can add to them. He said that a woman draws maternity benefit, even if the man has been the contributor. Under the Old Age Pensions Act, both contributory and non-contributory, old age pension is paid to the wife if she requests it, though the man and his employer may have paid

practically all the cost of it so far as that falls on the contributor. Then the allowance for evacuated children is always paid to the moster mother, not to the male head of the household. He has also mentioned several precedents abroad, so I will say very little about them, other than that in New South Wales an Act has been in operation for over 20 years, New Zealand has had one for about the same length of time and there is an Australian Act which has only been law for three or four years. Under every one of these payment is made to the mother, except when she is judged unfit by someone appointed by the administrating authority. In France, where there has been experience of this system since 1918, there is no law about it; the allowance is paid for by the employer, but steadily, to an increasing extent, the custom has been to pay the allowance to the mother, for the purely practical reason that it is found to work best.
Perhaps most significant of all is that remarkable Russian Act the right hon. and learned Gentleman quoted, which is only a few weeks old, under which the allowance is steeply graded upwards, until the mother of 11 children gets a relatively enormous payment. It is a grimly significant precedent that here we have a country with—I forget the exact figures, but at all events with several times our population—and with a much higher birth rate, which it is doing its very best to stimulate, while we, with a birth rate lower than that of France, lower than any in Europe except Sweden and Austria before the Anschluss, are taking this very limited step to encourage it, and are accompanying the Bill which does that with something which is, definitely, not an encouragement to women to produce more children. It is sometimes argued that family allowances in foreign countries have not been successful in encouraging the birth rate. That is one of those misleading half-truths. They have not usually increased it because the amount is very small, but they have helped to check the fall quite considerably, and all those countries, even pre-war France, have higher birth rates than we have.
What do we ask? Instead of this amazing proposal we think, first, it would be better that the allowance should belong to the child, and that if there are legal difficulties about that, the wife or mother


should be entitled to draw and spend it on behalf of the child, except when she is unfit—

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the hon. Lady's contention that if it is intended that the allowance should be payable only for the second child, no part of that money should ever be spent on the first?

Miss Rathbone: I do not think another 5s. a week will keep the second child, or any one child, but if the mother spends it on behalf of the child—

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Lady was putting a point about who should own this money. It occurred to me that it ought to belong to the child, but how are you to get over the difficulty that it is designed for the family as a whole, including the first one, and not just for the one in respect of which it is drawn?

Miss Rathbone: I am not a legal expert, but no court would, I think, decide that unless a child was being kept at less than 5s. a week, the money was being misspent because it was being spent for the maintenance of the family. That seems to me common sense. But if there are such substantial legal difficulties about making the money belong to the child, which would be a good thing for psychological reasons, then make it belong to the wife, thus showing that we realise the value of her service as a mother.

Mr. Magnay: Is not the real proposition that whatever is provided for any of the children should go to the augmentation of the common household fund, not to this child or the other child? We cannot expect the mother to give the second child any more than she gives to the first, who is not getting any allowance at all. They share and share alike.

Miss Rathbone: Did I not say that? Inevitably, especially when the allowance is a small one, it is pooled with the family income, and nobody can say that whoever is responsible for spending it is doing wrong provided that the child gets something equivalent to the allowance. The second change we want is that it shall be possible to alienate the allowance from the original payee without requiring an appeal to the court. There would be less objection to an appeal to the court if the mother were getting the allowance, be-

cause the father would not be frightened of the mother, but the mother might be frightened of the father. Therefore we want to follow the analogy of the Australian system, and several other systems, and allow the Minister to nominate somebody and to permit a right of appeal to the court. It should be possible to nominate somebody other than the husband or the wife, both of whom might be unsuitable persons.
What will happen if the House allows this proposal to go through unchanged? The Government have decided to leave it to a free vote of the House. I am glad of that, but I would rather they should decide at once, because I realise perfectly well that they have blundered into this decision: it was not a stroke of Machiavellian policy to degrade the status of motherhood. But the Cabinet is composed of men, and they cannot be expected to realise how women think on this question. I want to warn them of the intensity of women's feelings about it. They may not all have received many letters, because knowledge of this proposal is only spreading slowly, and no doubt there are quite a number of unimaginative and selfish women who, because their husbands would pay the money to them, saying: "What does it matter? It is all right for me." They should think of their less fortunate sisters. But the women's organisations are already planning to make sure that every politically-conscious woman in the country knows at the next election how her representative has voted. I took part in that long bitter struggle for the women's vote before the last war. We did not grudge all that it cost us, because it was worth it, and we got full realisation of women's citizenship through it. But I do not want to go all through that again. It was a bitter struggle, and it caused very-ugly results. During these last years, and especially during the war years, women have learned to work together with men, to play together with men, to suffer together with men. Do we want this sex grievance to raise its ugly head at the next General Election, when so many great issues will be before the country; when the whole country ought to be thinking about how the future of the peace of the world ought to be settled by those countries which are now in the bitter throes of war? Do not force us back into what we thought we had done with—an era of sex antagonism.
If the Bill goes through in its present form I cannot vote for the Third Reading, although I have worked for this thing for over 25 years. It would be one of the bitterest disappointments of my political life if the Bill did not go through. But I foresee too well the consequences if it goes through in a form which practically throws an insult in the faces of those to whom the country owes most, the actual or potential mothers, whom this country needs so badly if we are not to fall into the status of a second-rate Power. That is the possibility which is menacing us. The Government have thought again, in deciding to leave it to a free vote. I beg Members to take their responsibilities seriously, and to think again, to beware how they encourage sex antagonism—which we thought once was dead—to become once more an issue in a General Election.

2.8 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I would like to begin by paying a tribute to the Minister, in which I think all who heard him will join, for the extraordinarily lucid way in which he introduced this Bill. Each time I hear him I envy him his great gifts for making things plain. Whatever our controversies, we all understand now what the Bill means: what it does and what it does not do. It is perhaps an indication of the change which has come over this country in the last 20 years that apparently the most burning question now is not whether it is desirable that there should be a system of family allowances but to whom the allowances should be paid. There was a time when over such a Measure as this there would have been very great controversy: indeed, there would have been controversy in the great movement with which I am associated. For many years the trade union movement was bitterly opposed to the demand for family allowances. I speak more freely about my colleagues who held that view because I never shared it. I was a strong supporter of the proposal for family allowances, provided by the nation out of national funds, but I understood why my colleagues were afraid of it. The earliest systems of family allowances were introduced on the Continent. They were introduced in industries or groups of industries. They were paid sometimes out of contributions by the em-

ployers and the workmen, and sometimes by the employers alone, but they were an attempt to introduce a differential family wage in industry itself, and to make a distinction in the remuneration of men and women engaged on the same task, based on their sex and family responsibilities. That would not work, and it was very largely because we were definitely and resolutely opposed to it that in the very early days there was controversy in our movement.
Now opinion has changed, and the T.U.C., as well as the political movement to which I am privileged to belong, have declared themselves in favour of family endowment, or family allowances, on the principles laid down in this Bill. There are two reasons for that. We think now of this great principle which we are establishing, in a modest way, to-day not as something by itself, but as part of a great comprehensive social insurance scheme by which we shall provide security for our people. It is in that sense that we have to consider this Bill to-day, not in isolation but in relationship to the other schemes which are forthcoming. It is part of the National Insurance scheme, part of the complete structure which eventually—and in the not too distant future—we hope we shall build. I think another reason for the change in public opinion generally, and particularly in our own movement, on this subject is the fine pioneering work done in this matter, as in every other kind of social security matter, by the Labour Government in New Zealand. This is a case where the child has led the mother. In New Zealand children's allowances are provided under the general social security Acts, and are related to all the other provisions of those Acts. The success which has attended that work by our friends in New Zealand has had very great influence on opinion in this country. We regard family allowances as one contribution—an important one—to the war against insecurity, poverty, and want. We regard it as a contribution to meet particularly that kind of poverty which is related to the pressure of circumstances upon families where there are a number of dependent children still at school. We believe that we shall eventually weave all these together into a complete national policy.
We believe that we are moving slowly but surely towards a national policy which


will establish a minimum standard of human needs and welfare, below which no one will be allowed to fall. We should like to increase the pace—I shall have a word to say about that before I conclude. I believe that we are working towards the establishment of a national Plimsoll line of economic security. We are all convinced now that the old 19th century argument that it needs poverty to give incentive to people is discredited and wrong. Poverty does not give incentive; it destroys it. The nation must be free from the fear of poverty and want if it is to fulfil its great tasks. In the degree to which this Measure can contribute towards that we welcome it. In all these discussions I very often have a feeling that I wish these things could be made retrospective, because I recall my own experience. I am perhaps a typical representative of my generation. I was the youngest of 10 children.

Sir W. Jowitt: So was I.

Mr. Griffiths: The Minister and I share that experience. I often wonder how those fathers and mothers reared a family. I was the lucky one, for I was the youngest; and the youngest was always the lucky one. When the youngest came the older brothers and sisters had already started work, and were making their contribution towards the family income. There were two ways in which parents came through that period. First, they all incurred debt. In the part of the country from which I come it was almost a custom for the family to run into debt while the first children were growing up. The second thing was that they went without. To the degree that they went without, that was a loss, not only to the children and to the families, but to this nation. We shall need every child in future, and we shall need them to be healthy in mind and body, because we shall need their contribution. I want to put forward the suggestion that this should be regarded as an investment which will bring a reward in the days that lie ahead.
Let me now pass on to review some of the provisions of this Bill, and first say something about the amounts. We accept whole-heartedly, from our party standpoint, for we have always held this view, the proposal for the mixture, if I may use the phrase, of payments in cash and services in kind. In other words, we believe that there is an overwhelming case for this

mixture. We do not want, on this occasion, to enter into the merits or demerits of one or the other. Most of us think that very often the best results are obtained, by services in kind, collectively and communally provided. But we accept the Government's view, and will support the principle in the Bill, that help to families and children is to be provided in these two ways, and we shall regard them as supplementary and complementary one to the other. I do not know whether there will be any discussion upon this point, but we regard this mixture of services in kind and cash payments as one of which we shall approve very heartily.
We know, when we consider the amount of cash provided in this Bill, that it must be related to the provisions proposed by the Government for services in kind, which they estimate at 2s. 6d., so that the total allowances, in cash and kind, will be 7s. 6d. I would be very glad indeed to hear from the Minister that the Government have decided that a very high priority, in the supply of labour, materials and whatever else is required, is to be given to this great task of fulfilling and implementing the pledge to establish the services in kind indicated by the Minister of Education. I urge the Government that that priority shall be given real effect. The period of transition may be in many ways, physically, morally and spiritually, the most dangerous that we shall have to face, from the standpoint of the health of the nation. During the war itself its compelling power, and the fact that it is there, act as a kind of tonic. When it is over and the period of relaxation comes and we sit back, it may be a very dangerous period, and I urge upon the Government that the feeding of the children at school will then be as important as, and perhaps more important than, it is now. I am sure that the Minister will carry out his pledges to the House, but I ask him to urge upon his colleagues how essential it is that this provision in kind shall be made as quickly as possible.
Now I come to the amount per child, which is very important. In 1927 the party to which I belong passed a resolution in favour of 5s. per child, including the first. To-day 5s. is not what it was in 1927, or even in 1939, and, as a matter of fact, the Government do not propose to pay 5s. now but at some date in the


future. What will 5s. be worth then? So far, the Government have refused to accept the principle by which these allowances are related in some way to the real value of the allowances when they come to be used by the people to whom they are paid. For the moment, we accept this Bill. We would have liked to increase the allowance; we would have liked to include the first child. We believe that that is desirable, and in every scheme which we have introduced we included a payment for the first child. I know that for the moment we have to accept this Bill, and I only mention it now because of the hope that, in 10 years' time, the amount will be increased and the first child included, for I believe that we shall realise that it is an investment that brings a good return, and that it will be an even better investment if paid also for the first child.
I come next to whether the payment should be made to the father or the mother. I hope we shall not examine or debate this on the lines of seeking to discuss the relative merits of fathers or mothers, or try to find out whether the percentage of bad fathers is higher than the percentage of bad mothers, for that is the wrong way of approach. In the majority of cases, and particularly in the majority of working class homes, the parents realise that it is a co-operative responsibility. Father and mother work together. If they did not, heaven knows how they would live. It is bad enough as it is, but life would be sheer impossibility if there were not this co-operation. Most of the disputes which may be mentioned in this discussion do not come from working class homes at all, but from other classes. In the average working class home if the money is paid to the father he will say, as my father said when asked what he would do, that it should be given to the mother. If we asked that type of father, the good, decent father, what he would like to do and whether he would like us to decide this question, I am certain that he would say: "Give it yourselves direct to the mother."
I have taken some trouble to find out what the women think about this and how they regard it. I took advantage of an opportunity that came to me to discover what the women connected with our great movement think about it. This organisation, which represents the opinion, so far

as it can be collected, of working class women in this country, has, as it happens, a committee which I believe is the most representative women's organisation in the country—the Joint Committee of Working Women's Organisations. It includes representatives of all women's organisations in the trade unions—and the House should remember that they are now a larger number than ever before in the history of this country—and includes the women who belong to our party and the women associated, through their guilds, with the Co-operative movement. I crave permission to quote from a letter sent to us by the secretary of that organisation, and my hon. Friends the hon. Members for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson) and West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) will bear out what it says, which, to me, is conclusive. Here is what it says:
Organised working women do feel strongly on the matter, not because they take an extreme feminist view on this matter, but because they are convinced that the time has come for the recognition by the community of the importance of the work of women in the home and of the status of women.
That is their view, and I commend it as the most representative view of the working women of this country that I have been able to discover. That view has been represented very strongly to us, and, at the Conference of the Labour Party in December, when I had to be responsible for the Executive on this matter, a resolution that the allowance should be paid to the mother was carried unanimously by the Conference, including the trades union representatives. There is one further comment made in this letter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Minister. Recently they have been asked, and are now preparing, to give their evidence, which will be valuable, to a Royal Commission set up by the Government to consider trends in population, and this matter came forward at the same time:
They think it is rather odd that a Government which has found it necessary to appoint a Royal Commission on population because of its concern with population trends should go out of its way, as it were, to stereotype the inferior status of the wife and mother in the home by laying it down that the allowances shall be paid to the man and not to the wife.
I am certain that, if this were left to the free vote of the House, or if it were left to a free vote of the country, the overwhelming desire would be that it should be paid to the mother, quite apart from any discussions about fathers and mothers


such as we have sometimes had. Therefore, we shall vote in the Committee stage for the payment to be made to the mother.
There are a large number of points in this Measure which we shall raise on the Committee stage, but I want to say a word now about duplication. I speak about it now because this is the first of the Measures we are to have on social insurance. The next one, we expect, will be the Measure to deal with industrial injuries' insurance, in other words, workmen's compensation, and I want now to put a point to the Minister and to the Solicitor-General. We shall raise the whole problem of duplication of payments. The Minister said there is going to be a rule on this, and in Committee we can go into it in far greater detail, but I want to put this point to him, because my right hon. Friend is, at this moment, preparing the new Workmen's Compensation Bill. In this Bill it is proposed that, where an allowance is paid to the children of an injured or disabled working man, there will be no duplication of allowances. If there is payment of workmen's compensation there will be no duplicate payment. The Minister knows very well that we are making a fundamental departure in this matter of compensation. In the past, workmen's compensation has been an obligation on the employer, and the contribution has been made by the employer, who has had to insure his workmen and has had to pay them the appropriate payments. In the new scheme, for the first time in British history, the man or woman is asked to pay part of the cost of the compensation they will get when injured. Thus my right hon. Friend can see that the situation is changed very substantially. We know perfectly well that the employers of this country, under the new scheme—and I am all for it, though I want to make amendments, even of substantial importance—will save millions of pounds a year. If the present rates persist, they will save nearly £10,000,000 a year. Are we now to say that the worker has to contribute to the compensation five-twelfths of the cost and be deprived of what is called "duplication of benefit"? I ask the Minister to give very serious thought to that problem, before we come to the Committee stage, because the new Bill is being framed and that position ought to be borne in mind.
As a last word, I ask, When is this to come into operation? The Bill is silent about this, and says the Minister may fix an appointed day. Last year, in the House of Commons, we passed the Education Act, and that Act provided that, on 5th April this year, the school-leaving age will be raised to 15, and then, later on, and I can quite understand the reason, it was announced that that was to be postponed to some time in the future. It is very important to remember that that created a good deal of cynicism in this country and there is a good deal of cynical comment about it. People said, "They pass Bills in the House and give pledges and promises, and then, as the time gets nearer, they postpone them." I believe we shall be doing a great disservice to our nation if we do anything in this House to create that feeling among the people of the country. I beg of the Government to think of that and to do something which I am going to suggest to them. The passing of this Bill may very well coincide with the coming of victory to our United Forces on the Continent of Europe. It may be that peace will come to Europe round about the time that this Bill goes on to the Statute Book, and I make this appeal: fix the date of the operation of this scheme as near as possible after that time. I would like to see it fixed for 1st January next year. There are difficulties but we have surmounted far greater difficulties during the last five and a half years or more. I believe that it is possible to fix next January for the bringing of the scheme into operation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will consider that suggestion.
We shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, but we shall seek in several ways to amend and improve it on the Committee stage. We hope that the Bill will be passed without any unnecessary delay, and that the Government will fix as early a date as possible for the Act to come into operation. We shall welcome it when it becomes a part of the scheme in this country to provide our people against poverty and its circumstances. I believe that in the future all of us who take part in the passing of this Bill, who vote for it and help to improve it, will have reason to be proud of the fact that we have done something for the child life of this nation which will redound to the credit of the nation.

2.32 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) reminded the House that the Labour Party, in 1927, passed a Resolution which was substantially to the effect of the contents of this Bill, that is to say, family allowances of 5s. a week for children. He used that argument rather to animadvert on the amount suggested, having regard to the difference in the value of money now, but I would remind him that there is a considerable difference between a party passing at a conference what they would like to do if in power, and a Government coming to this House and putting forward concrete proposals. The Government are to be congratulated upon the steps which they have taken in implementing the proposals which were originated in the report of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge).
I want to make one or two comments as to the amount. One sometimes hears people putting forward suggestions that because the report of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed referred to the sum of 8s. a week the amount now suggested by the Government is considerably smaller. The Minister adequately disposed of that idea when he explained the amount which is to be given in kind. It is not too much to say that the Government's proposals, when you take into account the cash benefits and the services in kind, are a considerable improvement on he suggestions of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I hope that no Member of this House, when talking outside those House, will lend colour to the idea that there is in fact anything less. I think the House would agree that we should pay a tribute to the extraordinarily lucid way in which the Minister explained this Bill to us and certainly I for one am extremely grateful to him for making clear to me some points which I did not understand before, though I do not think he explained why the first child is omitted. I have never yet heard an argument for the omission of the first child and I would be grateful, when the Minister replies, if that point could be dealt with.
The other matter in the speech of the Minister which deserves comment is the extraordinarily impartial way in which he presented-the arguments both for and against the question of whether payment is to be to the mother or to the father. The

points which he made, if I were in a state of uncertainty before about this, left me in no doubt that they ought to be paid to the mother. On the position, as I understand it, he really presented five comments on this matter. The first two are immaterial, because, as he rightly said, in the normally happy family the parents will decide for themselves and no difficulty will arise. Among less happy families, if the amount is paid to the mother, there is a risk of the father deducting it from the housekeeping money and, therefore, the benefit would not, in fact, accrue to the mother. Nothing that we can do in this House can legislate against that eventuality.
Three other arguments which I understood the Minister to put in favour of the payment to the husband were these: first, he said that under other schemes payment is made to the father. He then referred to certain schemes under which payment is so made but I would remind him that they were by no means an exhaustive list. The system which has been very widespread during the war of the payment of allowances to the dependants of people in the Services is in point. Payment in respect of children in the case of people in the Services is direct to the mother and, if that principle is applicable in that instance, I see no reason why it should not be equally put into effect under this scheme. It has to be remembered, and it is always held certainly by the Service Ministries, that the dependant's allowance is part of the soldier's income, although payment is direct to the mother, so there is no justification for attempting to separate them and say that one is the soldier's pay and the other is the mother's allowance. It is not; it is a part of the soldier's income. It is something which the Service Ministries, who always underpay those whom they employ, as a result of their guilty conscience, feel they should make up to the family. I would remind the Minister that the Service Ministries have got over any difficulties which may arise in principle on that matter and I hope that he will bear that in mind.
Another point put forward by the Minister was on the question of taxation, as to which I want to say two things. No difficulty arises on the question of taxation at all, because the aggregate income of husband and wife is liable to tax, and it is the husband who has to pay


the tax in any event. That question is not in the least affected by whether the money goes direct to the husband or to the wife. It has certainly come as rather a shock to me to learn that the allowance is to be subject to tax. The Service allowances are not subject to tax and I see no reason why this allowance should be subject to taxation. I can see that certain difficulties might arise within the ordinary principles of tax law if they were exempted, but I can also see a very easy way of dealing with the difficulty. It is a well-recognised principle of Income Tax law that the receiver of the income may deduct an amount for expenses in respect of the income received. It is clearly intended that this money should be expended on the child, and also that all of it should be expended on the child. It therefore seems to me that when a parent receives 5s. in respect of a child it should be assumed, unless the contrary is shown, that that 5s. is a deductable expenditure with regard to tax. I put that forward as a solution which would enable the principles of Income Tax law to be maintained and yet at the same time permit the payment of the full amount of 5s. which, I believe, the majority of the Members of this House wish the parents to receive with regard to each child.
The final point which the Minister made was that the father, as head of the household, is the person who is liable to maintain the child. That is a very technical point. I technically maintain four, but it is my wife who does the work. It is she who has to buy the food, and it is she with whom the children are living considerably more than they ever see me. Although it is technically right to say that the father remains responsible for the children, they are during the great bulk of their time with the mother. It is she who has to queue up for food and to see that they are fed at the right time and that they are properly clothed and fed. In practice the maintenance of the children falls upon the mother. That seems to dispose of the arguments put forward by the Minister for payment to the husband, and I hope that when the time comes and we have to take a decision about this we shall do it influenced by those constructive and practical arguments and not, if I may say so without disrespect, the arguments put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rath-

bone). I am not really concerned with those rather absurd questions of, for instance, "an insult to the status of women." They are not sound arguments at all, but here there are good, sound and practical family reasons why this allowance should be paid to the mother and that the mother should receive it in full.

2.43 p.m.

Mrs. Adamson: I should like, first, to congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on his presentation of the Bill and his lucid exposition of its contents. The Bill is welcomed by Members of all parties in this House and by the majority of the people outside. It is an admission of the principle of family allowances or, in other words, of the fact that the children of the nation are its greatest asset, and that it is high time that this country began to give greater care and attention to its future citizens. But I can hardly call it a real family allowances Bill when it excludes the first child in the family. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) has dealt with that point, but no distinction should be made between the first child and other children in a family. I agree with the Government's proposals in regard to the payment of a certain amount of cash and of payment in kind by the extension of the social services.
I speak as a practical housewife who has reared a family of four on a working man's wage and who knows from experience about the value of the social services. If I were asked whether I would accept the allowance exclusively in money, or partly in cash and partly in kind, I would say the latter. I would favour the payment of a certain allowance and a great extension of the social services by the provision of a midday meal and milk. In the secondary schools there is a higher percentage of the children receiving the benefits of a midday meal and also milk. Figures were given some months ago which were very interesting, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman has also given some this morning. In the secondary schools the provision of, and participation in, a midday meal is looked upon as part of the communal life of the school, and the youngsters have benefited to a far greater extent by that social service than they otherwise would have done if they had gone home to a meal. That is not


casting any reflection on the mother. In my constituency, and indeed in many others, the mother spends a great deal of time in the preparation of a midday meal for the children coming home from school, and then she has a repetition of the same work in preparing a meal for her husband coming home at night. So I want to emphasise the point, already made, that this would help to lighten the work of the wife and the mother.
I am not satisfied with the position that arises at the present moment in regard to the provision of meals, because there are thousands of children who will not be able to benefit immediately. I hope, therefore, that the Government will expedite the arrangements for the inclusion of all children in regard to the provision of the midday meal, and also the milk, though it is more acute in regard to the former. I also want to see that carried out during the school holidays. In a certain part of my constituency voluntary workers have seen to it that the children receive their milk during the school holidays, and I believe that arrangements can be made for that policy to be carried out also in regard to the provision of dinners.
A great deal of controversy has arisen on the question: "To whom should the allowance be paid?" I am not an extreme feminist. I am speaking here to-day on behalf of 1,250,000 women, referred to by the hon. Member for Llanelly, the women of the Standing Joint Committee of the Working Women's Organisation, more representative perhaps of ''the woman in the home" than any other women's organisation in this country. We do not take a purely feminist attitude, we look at it from the commonsense point of view. The Bill says that this allowance shall belong to the man. As a family allowance it should belong to the child, but the child is not in a position to spend that money and therefore we have to face realities and to see who it is who normally spends the money.
We do not want to take away the husband's position as the economic head of the family but it is the mother who is responsible for spending the family income to the best advantage in the maintenance of the home, looking after her husband and the children. So we say that, quite naturally, payment should be made to the mother and, knowing the

working classes of this country, I say that the average British husband would prefer that it should be paid to the wife and mother. He does not want to be humbugged by queueing at a post office to get this allowance; he does not want to be humbugged by having to queue at the shops in order to get the necessary food and clothing for himself and the family. He does not do that now. It is the custom in working-class homes to pull together in the best interests of the family, and they generally pool the income too, and spend it to the very best advantage for the rearing of the children.
I had a look at the New Zealand Act and, according to the wording of that Act, the allowance is made payable to the mother or father. It is usually the mother who draws it, but we have to face the fact, as the right hon. Gentleman himself stated this morning, that there are certain cases where the payment could not be made to the mother. There is the example of widowers, and the case where the mother may be in an institution, or there may be the exceptional case where the mother has deserted the children. In those cases you would have to make it payable to the father. In New Zealand, and those other countries mentioned previously in this Debate, where it has been paid to the mother it has been a remarkable success. There has been no trouble about it at all, and there have been no complaints, and I feel that the mother country would do well to follow the example of the daughter States. If we make it payable to the mother, it would be more in keeping with modern ideas about the position of women.
Some Members have ridiculed the point about the status of the mother. Of course we have had tributes paid, particularly during this war, to the women of this country and greater tributes have been paid all down the ages to mothers. However the fact remains that the wife and mother has not the status to which she ought to be entitled. Her work is of the highest national importance, yet we have never valued her work, or given her that recognition which, in my judgment, was her due. We have always thought that her work was less important than that of her husband and less important that that of a woman in factory or workshop. We are now being asked to state the reasons for the great decline in the birth rate, and, in my opinion, we


shall have to give a greater recognition of the work of the mother in our legislation and in the community than has hitherto been done. So I am not ashamed to argue that we should give a higher status and a higher recognition to the importance of the work of the mother, and this new legislation provides an opportunity for recognition of that great status.
Reference has also been made to the fact that the maternity benefit has been paid to the mother. I was speaking to an hon. Member who for many years was secretary of an approved society and had paid out in thousands of cases the maternity benefit. He said there have been no complaints, and the fact that it was paid to the mother gave greater satisfaction all round. It was recognised that it belonged to her. The hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) mentioned the allowances made to wives of Servicemen. I feel we ought to pay a tribute to the Servicemen's wives for the magnificent way they have coped with the rise in prices, and every other thing, in order to spend money to the best advantage and in the best interests of the children. But if we can do it in those cases, there is no reason why we should not be able to do it in others.
I am glad that the Government are to have a free vote of the House on this question. I suggested that in a previous discussion, but I was not too sure that they would give way on that point. I shall not intimidate hon. Members in this House by saying that on this issue the women of this country are waiting for them. I believe that if the majority of Members face realities they will say, "What is the use of quibbling about who is to get the money? Give it to the mother who normally spends the money for the children and the home. She will do the right thing and, in the majority of cases, the husband will be only too pleased and there will be no domestic friction about that small amount of money." In any case, a really bad husband will find ways and means of seeing that the wife does not benefit, but that is no reason why we should not cater for the majority of the cases.
Reference has been made to the possible date when this Bill will come into force. I would say that if we get peace soon, if the war with Germany is over soon, if the victory bells ring, that would be

a unique opportunity for putting this Measure into operation. We could show, in a practical way, that we wanted to inaugurate a new era for the care and protection of the future citizens of Great Britain. I am glad that the Government have brought out this Bill, and I hope that we shall go forward to the realisation of its principles, determined to do the best in the interests of the children of this country.

2.57 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I should like to endorse the view of the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) that those of us who are in the House now will be able to look back with some satisfaction on having taken some small share in assisting this Bill through Parliament. I believe this Measure will be one of the main steps in building for our children that scheme of social security which all of us, irrespective of party or of the section of the House with which we may sit, so greatly desire. In the opening sentences of his speech, the hon. Gentleman referred to the experience of New Zealand. Those of us who, like the hon. Lady opposite and myself, have had the privilege of going there recently, have come back with one feeling, and that is, that having introduced a widespread social security service, there will be no looking back, and it will be universally accepted.
However, this Bill has one or two other effects to which I would venture to draw the attention of the House in a moment. There is a redistribution of income—I think it is a good thing in one way—not between class and class, but between individual and individual within the year in which tax is paid and family allowances are received. The effect of this will be to levy upon people, at times when they can afford an expenditure, a certain amount of provision which will come back to them when the need for educating and maintaining their family are greatest.
I do not think this Bill will do anything at all to increase the population, and I do not think it has been introduced with that in mind. If it were so, I should be against it, but I think this is a part of the nation's care and provision for those young people of whom its real wealth consists. I do not like the exclusion of the first child very much, and that is not only for the reason that I happen to be a first child myself. I view this matter from


the ordinary mechanics of the working-class household. Take a young fellow and a young girl who earn the minimum rates of wages paid in agriculture, £3 10s. for the man and £2, 8s. for the woman. When they are married, but there are no children in the home, the family income is £5 18s. When the first child comes along the mother has to come to a decision. Is she going to stop at home and look after that child and allow the family income to be reduced, or is she to try to carry on with her weekly work, and make such arrangements as she can in the country, for the care of her child? Certainly, nurseries will help, but I believe the proper person to have the care of a young family is the mother, and that to take care of that family is a full-time job. Therefore, I do not believe that the first child will be excluded for very many years. But perhaps we are wise to move forward by these steps at the present time.
There is one difficulty, and I would ask the Minister, when he replies, to deal with it. Suppose there are two children in the family when this scheme is introduced, and, unfortunately, one of those children dies. Then, I assume, the allowance will stop in respect of the one child. Nobody who has spoken in this Debate has failed to deal with the question of whether the benefit should be payable to the male or female parent. I have discussed this matter with my Friends who sit with me on these Benches and I am satisfied that nearly all of them think that the payment should be made to the mother, not, perhaps, for exactly the same reasons as everybody would think. I listened to the hon. Lady the Member for Dartford (Mrs. Adamson), and I thought she drew a very neat division between the commonsense point of view and the feminist point of view. I think this allowance should be regarded, not as a payment to the father or the mother, but as a payment to be expended on behalf of the child by the person who has the greatest knowledge of the child's real needs. In that case, we must accept the proposition that it should be the mother. If I had to choose in these matters between the example of Eire and that of New Zealand, then my sympathies are wholly with, and my precedent will come from, New Zealand.
It would not be out of place to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend, not only on his lucid statement,

for which we are most grateful, but for one of the most skilful Parliamentary performances that this House has ever had an opportunity of witnessing. I had a strong feeling that when this Bill was originally presented to the House the Government's mind was not quite so open on the question of which parent should receive the money, as it now appears to be. Evidently, we misunderstood the Government's thought. My right hon. and learned Friend was able to make it quite clear that no loose ends had been left.
Then there is the question of tax-free payment. Should the payment be free of tax or not? I certainly think it should be free of tax. The first reason is that we want to benefit every child, as I understand it, who will come under this Measure to the extent of 5s. a week. But if the payment is subject to tax, some will benefit by 5s., some who are paying tax at the full rate will benefit by 2s. 6d., and people in between will benefit by such odd amounts as 3s. 7½d. and 4s. 2½d., according to the scale of income. The second reason is that there will be mechanical complications in the payment of tax. It will be payable by the father although the money may, in fact, have been received by the mother. The third reason came from my right hon. and learned Friend, and I think we should be grateful to him. He indicated that this family allowance must be taken in conjunction with the payment in kind. The two things are inseparably linked together—the payment in kind and the cash payment—but the payment in kind is, he reminded us, not subject to tax. I would, therefore, ask him that the cash payment also should not be subject to tax.
Those are the few observations I would venture to bring to the consideration of the House. I would say in conclusion that my right hon. and learned Friend is a pioneer in this job, and I am quite sure that anyone who listened to his speech realised the resolve in his mind to try to make this a really workable scheme, of advantage to the community. I am sure the House will join with me in welcoming this beneficial provision and in hoping that later on we shall go further and provide also for the first child.

3.7 p.m.

Mrs. Tate: I join with other hon. Members in congratulating the Minister on the way in which he brought


in the Bill. I should also like to congratulate him on the apparent change of heart of the Government on the question: To which parent should these payments be made? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he, himself, was completely unbiased. He said that he was not a feminist, but an equalitarian. Personally, of course, I have always regarded feminists as equalitarians. Equality is what I ask for when I fight the cause of women. All I want to see is equal opportunity for individuals, irrespective of sex. I rather regret that the Government have left this matter to a free vote of the House. That is a very rare precedent for them to follow. They are usually able to make up their minds, and I think sufficient pressure has been brought to bear upon them to enable them to know what the will of the House is. They should, on this occasion, have made up their mind.
There is no doubt that the payment should be made to the mother. Much as I wish to see the status of the housewife and the status of motherhood raised in this country, it is not for those reasons that I plead that the payment should be made to the mother. The housewife is the person who does the shopping, who manages the affairs of the household, who knows what is best for the child and has, in normal cases, the care of the child and she is the best able to decide how the money should be spent. I say that, even though the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that, in happy families, there would be no argument in this matter. That is perfectly true, but, unhappily, we do not legislate for happy families. They are very well able to arrange affairs for themselves. It is in the less happy families, that we have to try to safeguard the children and, after all, this is an allowance for the children. Solely on the ground that I believe it will be for the benefit of the children, I ask hon. Members, who have now got it in their power, to make certain that this payment is given to the mother and to no one else, unless the mother has proved herself unfit to handle the money. I am very glad there is that provision in the Bill because we all recognise that there are parents—both fathers and mothers—who are quite unsuitable to receive the money.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman made one point which I do not quite understand. He said that where a child went to a home, unless it was an approved

school, the parent was still to receive the money. On the other hand, I understand that if a child is moved to an approved school, the approved school should have the money. I should like to know what happens in the case of the children—and there will be an increasing number of them—who still actually belong to their parents, but in whose case the parents have made a private arrangement, and the children have been given to foster parents. I am not talking about legal adoptions; I am not talking of arrangements of that kind. I am talking of cases where, for instance, a mother has a child which she does not know what to do with for a certain time, and she finds a foster parent to take care of it. That is, of course, more usually the case with the first child, but it is not always so. The case of the foster parent is one of very real moment. Who, in that case, is to get the benefit—the parent who still is the legal guardian of the child, or the foster parent who is, in fact, looking after and bringing up the child? I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make that clear.
In the case of the child who goes to a home like Dr. Barnardo's Home for an unlimited period of time, it appears to me that, in some cases, it is going to be rather unfair if the parent who is not looking after the child still receives the money. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the money would enable the parent to visit the child, or give the child little presents, but that applies also to children in approved schools. Unless the education authority becomes the fit person under the ruling of the court, the parents have the right to visit the child. When we discussed the matter with the Home Secretary the other day, I made a very strong plea that where the education authority was considered a fit person, the parent should still have the opportunity of visiting the child at an approved school. Personally, I regard that as exceedingly important. In fact, I think parents can visit their children at approved schools, but cannot visit them if they are privately boarded out. I want the name and address of the place where children are boarded out given to the parents, in order to avoid some of the incidents which we have been made aware of in the past, and, in that case, I ask who is to receive the money. Is it quite


fair that those parents should be debarred from having the 5s., debarred from having the money to visit their children, and debarred from having the money to give them presents if the money in respect of the child in, say, Dr. Barnardo's Home is still to be paid to its parent who does not look after it. I think we are raising a very real inequality between certain types of parents. It is a very involved and difficult question, but I should be glad if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would look into it, because I think he may be making an inequality between parents.

Viscountess Astor: I would ask the hon. Lady whether she is talking about children in approved schools. I understood she wished parents of such children to have the right to visit them.

Mrs. Tate: I think the mother has the right to visit the child at an approved school, but has not the right to visit the child if it is put into the care of private people, by the educational authorities appointed by the court. I think that is the difference.
I endorse what other hon. Members have said that this is a very great day for the House of Commons. The recognition of the importance of the child life of the country is a real step forward. But I feel that some of the good of this Bill, which has been brought in by a Coalition Government, may be done away with if there is delay in operating the Act. Although I realise the difficulties are great, it is of tremendous importance that the Measure should become law before this Parliament dissolves, and I urge that every possible step should be taken to see that it is placed on the Statute Book and brought into operation at the earliest possible date.

3.15 p.m.

Group-Captain Wright: When speakers on all sides of the House claim that the credit for a Bill belongs to their party or their organisation, we can be pretty certain that it is a good Bill. I welcome this Measure, but I must say to the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths), who claimed that it was as a result of a Resolution passed by the Labour Party at their Conference in 1927, and to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton

(Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe), who congratulated the Government on having brought in proposals which were originated by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), that some credit should be paid to my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) who, more than any other Member in this House, is responsible for the Bill we are considering to-day. I know a good deal of the terrific enthusiasm and work she has put into this matter, because I have had the pleasure of working with her on this subject ever since I became a Member of this House.
Quite obviously the House generally approves the Bill, and I do not propose to-day to make any serious criticisms of it. The hon. Member for Llanelly prophesied that this Measure would be a very much better Act in 10 years' time. I am convinced of that, because I note the change of heart which is very discernible in the House to-day, as compared with that which existed less than three years ago, when I had the honour to initiate a Debate on this very subject and proposed almost exactly the same terms as those now being given in this Bill. To-day, not one speech has, so far, been made in opposition to the Bill.
I want particularly to refer to the question of whether the payment should be made to the father or mother. I wholeheartedly support payment to the mother. I agree that, theoretically, payment should be made to the father, but that is not possible. I think it a great pity to discuss the question of whether fathers or mothers are more suitable. I do not think that comes into the picture at all. I also think it is a great pity that we have to discuss this miserable little figure of 5s. If it were a question of the whole allowance being given in kind, if the 5s. were represented by a certain allocation of clothes or something like that, there would never be any suggestion of this kind. Obviously, the mother, as the person who has to do the work in connection with her child, should receive this allowance. I think it is a great pity to draw this comparison between men and women, and to say that a man is the one who earns the monetary income. That is true, but this war has, at all events, proved that women are equally able to earn monetary income, and if both husband and wife decided to earn the monetary income, it would be a bad thing for


the home and a poor lookout for the children.
It is also a great pity to suggest that because a man is the person who actually earns the money he should be given the complete powers of dictatorship which the ownership of the money bags must bring him. I am certain that the House will give its decision quite clearly on the free vote which the Government have said they will allow. I look upon this matter as fundamental. I do not mind about the other Amendments, or whether the allowance should be increased to 6s., 7s. 6d. or 8s. All these things can be, and certainly will be, altered in the future, but the question of the person to whom the money should be paid is fundamental. My hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities stated the case most clearly. First, administratively, it would be almost impossible to make an alteration later, but, quite apart from that, fathers, who would be glad to see this allowance given originally to the mother, will, quite rightly, feel very resentful if, in a few years' time, it is suggested that a change should be made. It would be a reflection on them and a suggestion that they had failed to handle the money as they should have done.
This matter is also important, because we all hope that as a result of the Royal Commission on Population, which is now sitting, the Government may be induced in the near future to formulate and adopt a population policy. Surely in the forefront of such a policy there must be definite recognition of the service and value of motherhood. Although this is only a slight way of doing it, psychologically it does, in fact, upgrade the status of motherhood. For those reasons, I shall certainly record my vote in favour of payment to the mother. I thank the Minister, in conclusion, for having given the House an opportunity of expressing clearly, as I know it will, the strength of that feeling in the country to-day.

3.23 p.m.

Sir William Beveridge: Naturally, like everyone else who has spoken in the House to-day, I welcome this Bill, and I associate myself with what has just been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Group Captain Wright)—that the real author of this reform is my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities

(Miss Rathbone). I would like also to congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister on proceeding so admirably on the second stage of his Pilgrim's Progress towards the delectable land where there shall be no want. I propose to deal shortly with two points, namely, the question of whether the payment shall be made to the mother or father, and the question of the exclusion of persons not born in this country, and then to deal at rather greater length, with the question of the rate of allowance.
I welcome the decision of the Government to leave the question of whether the payment shall be made to the mother or father to a free vote of the House. I shall vote for payment to be made to the mother, for a few quite simple reasons. This allowance is not wages, and it is well to distinguish it from wages. It is not a prize for fatherhood. It is money given for a purpose, for the purpose of seeing that the children of this country, so far as possible, are properly fed, clothed and housed. Money for that purpose should naturally be given to the mother as the person who in 99 homes out of 100 has to spend for that purpose. The children's cash allowance should be paid to the mother, as money for providing school meals is to be given to those who are to provide and organise the meals. In coming to their regrettable decision to make payment to the father, I think the Government made a mistake in chronology. They did not realise that this was 1945; they thought we were back in the year 1879—the year in which I was born—and in which, before the Married Women's Property Act, all money belonged to the husband. Thus they thought that this money should belong to the father. I am delighted that the Government are going to allow the House to bring them forward from 1879 to 1945.
Now I come to the main topic I would like to discuss, that is, the rate of allowance. The essential thing in the Bill is that the rate of 5s. a week, as a cash allowance, is fixed, so that the House has no control over it, and as I imagine we shall be unable to move Amendments to alter it I want to give on this occasion my reasons for desiring to alter it when we can. The rate of cash allowance, as approached in my Report, from which the Minister has quoted, is based on two things.


First, upon an estimate of the total needs of the child, which I put, roughly, at 9s. a week on the assumption of a 25 per cent. rise in prices over 1930 prices. Second, it is based on an estimate of what provisions would be made in kind. On that, I suggested that, in addition to the existing provision in kind, amounting to 1s. a week, there should be another 8s. I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. and learned Friend for his quotation of my words from my Report, but I think he must realise that if I do not remember every word I wrote in that Report, it is because I wrote it some time ago, about 2½ years ago. There was one passage in that Report in which I spoke of cash or kind, but I suggest that there is nothing in my Report to indicate that I regard it as' indifferent whether it is mainly cash or mainly kind. Paragraph 425 says:
The average amount of such allowances should be 8s. a week in addition to the existing provision in kind … In so far as provision in kind is extended beyond its present scale, the cash allowances should be reduced.

Captain Prescott: Was not the hon. Gentleman's intervention during the Minister's speech unjustifiable and did not the hon. Member envisage in his Report that the 8s. might be partly in cash, and partly in kind?

Sir W. Beveridge: I said that assuming the existing provisions in kind to be 1s. a week, the cash should be 8s.; if the provision in kind was increased naturally the cash should be decreased. I had in mind 8s. in cash, reducible if the provision in kind was extended. That I was thinking originally of cash is, I think, clear because I made no allowance for the high administrative expenses involved in providing benefit in kind. Let me illustrate that by giving two sets of figures. One is the estimated cost of the cash allowances which the Government propose. They say that to give £57,000,000 in cash to the mother or father, as the case may be, will cost £2,000,000 to administer, that is, £59,000,000, divided as £57,000,000 and £2,000,000. On the other side, when you come to school meals, we were told recently by the Minister for Education that in order to provide meals costing for food, £40,000,000, you have to spend £20,000,000 on overheads. So your £60,000,000 in that case goes, as to £40,000,000, into the stomachs of the

children and, as to £20,000,000, into overheads, which means equipment, officials and administrative costs. If I had contemplated that any large part of the allowance should be given in kind, I should, naturally, have had to show a considerable addition to administrative expenditure, which I did not show in my budget. It is not really important enough to go into at any length. I imagine it will be agreed that there should be both cash and kind.

Captain Prescott: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the figure of £20,000,000. Is it correct or is it not correct that a large part of that would be capital expenditure which would never again recur and that it is quite wrong to class it as overheads?

Sir W. Beveridge: I do not know. In any case provision in kind means spending more on administration, because you employ not the mother but someone else. Also it is very difficult on that basis to make sure that you really cover the whole ground. You do not cover holidays or Sundays or the children not at school, or all meals. That is why, though I realise that we must divide the total between cash and kind, I should prefer to see more of it in cash and less in kind than is proposed by the Government.
The really important thing however is not the division between cash and kind, but to make sure that there is enough in total to keep every child above want always, in holidays and at all other seasons. What the Government propose is not really filling the gap. They seem much more anxious to make certain that the cost of every family is shared between the community and the family, than to make certain that no child is in want. That is the important purpose to me. They want the cost to be shared, though it is not certain that the family is able to bear its share of the cost. They want the cost to be shared, even when it is practically certain that the family cannot bear its share of the cost. Because the allowance is 5s. when the father is earning, you cannot give more than 5s. when he is on benefit, and you do not propose to do it. Where a person has only benefit to live on, if he has a large family it is practically certain that the children will be in want.
I agree with the principle that the cost of the family should be shared between the community and the family, but in my


proposal that is brought about automatically, in the case of every family, by the omission of the first child. If there is a one-child family, 100 per cent. of the family is paid for, when the father is earning, by the family. If there are two children, 50 per cent. of the cost of the two is paid by the family and 50 per cent. by the community. If there are three or more the share of the community rises but there is always a sharing. But the sharing in the Bill and under my proposals is different. Under my proposals the benefit for every child after the first when the father is earning, and for every child including the first when the father is not earning, should be adequate for subsistence. If that is done, no child need ever be in want, and that is the fundamental thing. The Government are more concerned to share the cost than to ensure freedom from, want for the children.
You can ensure that, if you give adequate benefit to every child after the first, when the father is earning, and to every child when the father is not earning. The earnings in practically every family are enough for man, wife and young child and, if they are not, you can, by minimum wage legislation, make sure that they are, but unless, as the family increases, you make certain that the whole cost of the child is covered by your allowance, you cannot make sure that the children will in every case be free from want. That seems to me the fundamental difference between what the Government propose and the report that I made. We cannot move any Amendment, but I am sure that those who are associated with me in the Liberal Party will continually fight for an adequate allowance for the children, whether in cash or in kind, more probably in cash than in kind, until we get it.

Sir W. Jowitt: Do I understand the hon. Gentleman to say that he did not recommend that the allowance should be paid partly in cash and partly in kind, and that as the payment in kind increased, the cash diminished? It is not only the one passage that I quoted. There are many places.

Sir W. Beveridge: The most relevant passage is what I have already read, that the average amount of the cash allowance should be 8s. a week in addition to the existing provision in kind. It should be

graduated according to the age of the child and, in so far as the provision in kind is extended beyond its present scale, the cash allowance should be reduced. I do not read that as a recommendation that provision in kind should be increased.

Sir W. Jowitt: May I give another reference—paragraph 415:
Though, on the view taken here children's allowances should be given mainly in cash, the amount of cash at any time must be adjusted to the provision in kind.
There are passages throughout the whole Report.

Sir W. Beveridge: I do not think there is any doubt that one must consider the cash and the kind together. My point is that you are not in fact making provision that the cash and kind in every case are adequate and that is the really important point. I have a bias in favour of cash rather than kind, for the reasons that I have given, but I would rather have adequate cash and kind together with a large proportion of it in kind than have an inadequate provision. The real question is the adequacy of the total provision. I did not expect what I wrote on that point in that Report to be the subject of so much textual criticism. I do not regard what I wrote as so enormously important. The thing that matters is to see that there is income in every family to keep the children above want. That is the only thing really that is worth discussing.

Mr. Magnay: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that the limit was, in his view, 9s. a week—8s. plus 1s. The sky is the limit.

Mr. Buchanan: On a point of Order. May I ask you, Sir, whether we are discussing the Tightness or wrongness of what someone wrote in the Beveridge Report or the Family Allowances Bill?

Captain Prescott: Further to that point of Order. In view of the hon. Gentleman who is now addressing the House, is it not permissible to draw the attention of the House to the terms of that Report and to discrepancies in the hon. Gentleman's speech to-day?

Mr. Speaker: In a Second Reading Debate the House can discuss what is in the Bill and what it would like to see in it. Whether the Beveridge Report comes


into that or not, I cannot say. I think it probably does.

Sir W. Beveridge: I hope I have said nothing to suggest that I resent in any way this criticism of what is written in my Report. I do not. I have tried to explain that, if prices are 25 per cent. above 1938, I want 9s. a week in toto. When I am asked how that should be divided, I say that is a secondary matter. I prefer more to go in cash, and less in kind, for the reasons that I have given.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: As I understand it, the extra shilling to which the hon. Gentleman refers is in respect of the increased cost of living. He originally asked for 8s. in his Report. Is it not a fact that the Government have given the equivalent of 8s. in cash and in kind?

Sir W. Beveridge: May I explain? I had a calculation made by experts that, at the prices of 1938, something like 7s., on the average, would be required for each child, or a little more. Assuming an increase of 25 per cent. on those prices, you need after the war an average of 9s. in total. I then said there is some provision in kind already. I estimate that that is worth a shilling a week, and by deducting that from 9s. I arrive at 8s. as the additional allowance to be made. The difference between 8s. and 9s. has nothing to do with the cost of living. Actually the cost of living is now more than 25 per cent. above pre-war, and will probably be in future, but it would be better not to go into that argument at this stage.

Sir W. Jowitt: The difference between 7s. and 9s. is practically 30 per cent.

Sir W. Beveridge: I have said all I want to say on that point, but I would reiterate that the important thing to my friends and myself here is that for every child after the first when the father is earning, and for every child when the father is on benefit, there should be in total enough to feed, clothe and board that child. That is the one fundamental principle which is not conceded in this Bill, and that is why we hope to amend it in due course.
May I come to a small point on Clause 24 which limits benefit to a British subject

born in Great Britain unless he is able to jump through the hoops of the Regulations which my right hon. and learned Friend is to make? I suggest that if a child is allowed to live in this country it ought to get the benefit of this allowance so as not to be in want. The test should be not nationality, not even domicile, but residence. I hope that an Amendment on that point will be in Order, and I shall propose it if no one else does. May I conclude by saying again that I welcome this Bill? We shall help it in every possible way, and, although it is not perfect, we hope that in due course it will be perfect.

3.47 p.m.

Mr. Storey: Unlike the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge), I welcome the Government's decision that a large part of the allowances to children shall be in kind and not in cash. The real argument for family allowances is not that it is an inducement to have more children, but that it will prevent the malnutrition of children through the poverty of their parents brought about by their assumption of family responsibilities. An allowance in kind will deal better with malnutrition than will a cash payment, and our demand should not be for an increased cash allowance, but for the speediest possible implementation of the Government's decision to pay a large part of these allowances in kind. I would support what was said by an hon. Lady opposite, that these allowances in kind should not be available only during term time, but that provision should be made for school meals to be available during the school holidays. In some of the agricultural districts the children do a certain amount of work on the farms during their holidays and it is at this time that they need the good nutritional meal that will be available in the school canteens.
The critics of the amount of these allowances are rather inclined to overlook the Government's contention that they are not the whole cost of maintaining a child, but are simply a contribution towards the cost of family responsibilities. I think that that view is in the main right, because, in the majority of families, the income is sufficient to maintain at least one child without reducing what should be the proper nutritional standard of the family and the legitimate social aspirations of the parents. That is not wholly


so. Social surveys which have been conducted in various cities of the country show that family responsibilities are the main cause of poverty, but they also show that by giving family allowances we will not do away with all poverty due to the assumption of family responsibilities, because the wage standard for some is too low. We should, therefore, concentrate our energies, not so much on trying to give a flat-rate increase of allowances all round, because that would be giving it to some who did not need it, but on trying to devise some means by which we can have a minimum wage standard which would be enough to support a family including one child.
With regard to the question whether the allowances should be paid to the father or the mother, I think that a logical case can be made out for payment to the father, but if the women really do wish the allowances to be paid to them I am prepared to see them paid to the mother. I think that on the whole we should recognise motherhood in this way, and if the women feel that it would be such a recognition I should be prepared to give it to them. We should consider whether family allowances should not be free from Income Tax. I want to support what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) said about that. The allowances should be of benefit to everybody, and if they are to be of benefit to everybody, they must be of value to the middle-income ranges. It is the middle-income ranges which will pay a large part of the cost, and they are, therefore, entitled to get the full benefit of the allowances. This can best be obtained by excepting them from Income Tax, or, as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, by allowing a deduction for the expenses of keeping a family equivalent to the allowance. I would like to offer my congratulations to the Minister of National Insurance for the clear exposition which he gave of the Bill and to wish him well in its further stages.

3.53 p.m.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: It is very encouraging to find yet another male Member who admits the housewife's right to receive the family allowances, even if he does not do it on logical grounds. I do not think that man's approach to woman is ever logical, and it would be wrong in this case for a man

to be swayed by logic. Some Members have tried to be logical and have said: "But who pays the Income Tax?" That is a nice little debating point for the Oxford Union, but they should re-member that in married life we cannot always talk in terms of L.S.D. Women give services to the home, and I might ask the male Members of the House whether during this war they or their wives have tried to find, let us say, a cook, a house parlourmaid, a housemaid, a laundry maid, and so on.

Sir A. Southby: Is that what happens in the Labour Party? They are on velvet.

Dr. Summerskill: I am addressing the Benches opposite.

Sir A. Southby: The hon. Lady will have Ernest after her if she is not careful.

Dr. Summerskill: I would remind hon. Members that the working housewife in the home gives all these services to the home. Those who think of married life in terms of money and argue that the husband has to pay Income Tax, should also assess the services of the wife in the home in terms of money and then they could deduct the Income Tax from that.
I welcome the final acceptance of the principle of family allowances, but I must say that, on a first reading of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum, I thought, like others, that it was really a Bill which would in fact be an endowment of fatherhood. I am pleased to hear that the Minister has thought again and is to give the House a free vote. If he had not thought again and if he had j foisted this Bill on the country in its present form, he would have become the most unpopular Minister in the country with the women. I think he is very wise, and I feel he will agree that the women Member are very generous in welcoming a free vote when it will mean that 601 men in the House will determine whether the mother should receive the allowance.

Viscountess Astor: The women of the country will determine that.

Dr. Summerskill: I want to deal with the amount of the family allowance. I do not welcome it as though it were a generous, allowance, as many people have done. I think it is rather mean and niggardly. The Minister has reminded


us that in 1927 New Zealand gave 2s. a week, to start with, for every child, yet here in 1945 we are offering 5s., although, as the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) reminded us, the Labour Party has advocated for 20 years an allowance of 5s. I do not go so far as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) and say that I would rather the whole amount was paid in money than in kind.

Sir W. Beveridge: I would say that a larger amount should be paid in cash than in kind. I certainly do not want to abolish all provision in kind.

Dr. Summerskill: I am in favour of adequate meals for children in the schools every day and for every child. The Minister said he also favoured that, but he could not tell when those conditions will be realised. What are the children to do in the interim period? This question has been put to the President of the Board of Education on many occasions, and he has said that perhaps in a few years it might come about. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would not consider raising the amount during the interim period and when every child is being fed adequately every day he could then come to the House and say: "Now the time has come to reduce the cash allowance."
I have a word to say on the question to whom the allowance should be given. Under the Bill there are to be excluded children of the most deserving families, children of disabled Service men, orphans of Service men and orphans of industrial workers. These are children of parents who have given the highest service to the country. If the Bill passes in this form the position will be that a child of well-to-do parents going to an expensive boarding school, spending its holidays in a comfortable country home, well fed and well cared for, will qualify for the 5s. a week, but the child of a Service man who has lost his life at Dunkirk or Arnheim will not qualify.

Sir W. Jowitt: That is not accurate. The provision in the Bill is that there is power to make regulations which, after an affirmative Resolution, might have certain effects, but as the Bill stands, unless that resolution is passed, these people get the allowance. It will only be

after a review, which may be on one basis or another under Clause 13, that regulations will be made.

Dr. Summerskill: I admit that under Clause 13 the Minister has the power to make regulations, but I do not want to leave it to regulations. I want to see it in the Bill. The Minister said that a child will have an allowance from the State if the father dies or is disabled. I would remind him that the allowance is the equivalent of what the father would be able to use for the food and clothes of his children if he were working, just as we have, for instance, a reserved worker in industry to-day who gets a regular wage spending so much on each child in his family. The family allowance comes along, and he will get 5s. more. These other children will certainly get a small grant of a few shillings a week because the father died, and the State takes responsibility for their support, but they are denied this extra benefit that other children in the country will have.
Then there are the orphans who qualify for the allowance, by reason of contributions to the National Insurance Scheme. The Minister has already mentioned the orphans. I think the widow gets about 3s. for her second child. That 3s. is going to be increased by a generous Government to 5s.—for the widow whose husband has made contributions to the fund for years. What woman can feed a child adequately on 3s. a week? She should be entitled, to the extra 5s. instead of an extra 2s. Here we have some of the hardest cases in the country being denied this allowance, while those in reserved occupations, comfortably situated people, will all qualify for it. I find it very difficult to reconcile the position, and I hope that the Minister will consider it further.
Another point concerns the first child. We have had arguments for the first child. I want to remind the Minister of that pathetic category of first children, the illegitimate children. He said in his opening speech that illegitimate children would qualify, but the 5s. is to be paid only for the second, third and successive children. An illegitimate child is usually the first and only child. My experience tells me that a woman who has two, three or four illegitimate children is generally subnormal mentally. These children would be cared for elsewhere. I am very concerned about the single woman, the finest in the coun-


try, who suddenly, because of a slip, finds herself a mother, and instead of getting rid of her responsibility through an adoption society says: "I will endure the stigma because I love this child." She is the finest in the country. She is handicapped from the moment of the birth. She has to get somebody to keep her and the child. If she goes to find lodgings the landlady looks at her and says: "Where is you husband?" She has to find somebody to care for her children while she is out at work. One of them wrote to me:
Do not forget that when we get out to work we do not get a man's wage, a family wage, but a single woman's wage.

Viscountess Astor: As a woman, the hon. lady has said a rather dangerous thing. She said that the finest woman in the country is the woman who has slipped. Surely the finest women in the country are those who resist, and who live up to a higher moral standard.

Dr. Summerskill: I believe that my moral standard is as high as the noble Lady's. I have had more experience in these matters than she has, and I have these women come to see me. I am able to judge whether or not they are fine human beings.

Viscountess Astor: They are not.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot have constant interruptions. The hon. Lady must be allowed to continue her speech.

Dr. Summerskill: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I stand by this, that if a woman finds herself with an illegitimate child and is prepared to face the stigma attaching to it for years, with all the difficulties with which she must be confronted, she is made of fine material.

Viscountess Astor: Hear, hear. That is quite right.

Dr. Summerskill: I believe that the Noble Lady knew I meant that. If the Minister will examine the case of the woman with only one child I think he will find evidence in support of my plea. If he will examine the infantile mortality among illegitimate children he will find that the rate is higher than for legitimate children, which is evidence that the illegitimate children do not have the same chance, because the mother is handicapped. She deserves this extra help. After all, this is not a question of sub-

sidising immorality but of helping an innocent child.
I want also to ask the Minister whether he will consider increasing the grant according to the size of the family. We must face the possibility that in a measurable number of years this legislation may be repealed. The Government of the day may come to the country and say that the able-bodied taxpayers are so few in number in proportion to the whole country that they are incapable of bearing the burden of the dependent members of the community. In my opinion it is of the first importance that we should arrest the decline in the birthrate in this country. It is wise to increase the grant to the second or third child. I do not believe that motherhood can be bought at 5s. a. week. I do not for one moment believe that a grant of 5s. would encourage any woman to produce a large family. A woman with strong maternal instincts will indulge her feelings when she knows that her budget may be made a little easier with each successive child. I feel quite convinced of that.
I find it difficult to understand why the Government work in water-tight compartments. What I have said about the birth-rate has been said by the Prime Minister. I remember that only recently he said that the greatest problem that faced this country was the decline in the birth-rate. That has been repeated by Ministers time and again. Finally, we have set up the Royal Commission on Population. In spite of that, every Department of State ignores the problem as though it did not exist. Many housing authorities—there are so many of them that 'I have lost count—build houses which will only hold families with one or two children. We see the Minister of Health closing day nurseries. We find ail over the country that it is very difficult for a woman to obtain accommodation to have a baby. Here is our latest opportunity to tackle this alarming decline in the birth-rate and yet it is not being grasped. I must ask the Minister to be more far-sighted than his colleagues and to realise that by giving a bigger grant than 5s. to the second child and successive children he may help mothers who would like to have large families.
My final point concerns the payment to the husband. I had the great privilege last year of going to Australia and New


Zealand. There I found family allowances being paid in every State. All the States are not controlled by Labour Governments. There was a Labour Government at Canberra, but in South Australia and in Victoria there were Conservative Governments. In each of those States I asked the Ministers whether there had been any controversy over the matter. They were surprised and said it had never occurred to them to question it. The money was given to the mother and that was welcomed by the men, and the whole thing had worked quite easily.
As to the status of the mother, I was interested to learn from the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe) that while he accepted the principle of paying the 5s. to the father he had no time for women or individuals who talked about the status of women. It is very difficult for any man to understand that imponderable. One has to be a woman who is humiliated week by week when she has to ask her husband for money for necessities—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—to understand it. I expected that one of them would make noises of that kind. I have already said that he cannot understand. He has never been put in this humiliating position. Therefore I say that a contribution of this kind, even of 5s. a week, will enhance the status of the mother, who is, in my opinion, the most important person in the country, for she produces the potential workers. I would remind the House that the most important person in the country, producing the potential workers, is not legally entitled to one penny. This is the first opportunity that the House has had of recognising the services which the mother gives to the home and I ask the Minister to take full advantage of that opportunity.

4.12 p.m.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: I am one of those who are old-fashioned enough to believe that it is the duty of an individual to discharge his own responsibilities, and that he should only be relieved of them by the State when he is not in a position to discharge them for himself; and, further, that it is the primary duty of Parliament to see that the individual has a reasonable opportunity of obtaining sufficient wherewithal to enable him to discharge the responsibilities which

are justly his. That apart, I welcome this payment of children's allowances, not because it is subsidising the man and the wife, but because it is a payment which is going to help the children. I am bound to confess that I do not think there is very much good to be got out of a discussion on the status of women. The status of woman is supreme and quite unshakable, and it will be neither increased nor diminished by any Act of Parliament which we can pass here.
There are many things on which we on these Benches differ, but if we are to start a sort of sex war in Parliament the Sittings of this House in the years to come will be exceedingly stormy. It is a good thing for the State to see that the children of the community are guaranteed a proper start, proper food and the best upbringing. A good deal has been said as to whether the allowance should be paid to the mother or to the father. I do not think it really matters, provided we make quite certain that the money gets to the children. Since the mother has the most to do with the child and comes much more into close contact with it, I should certainly come down on the side of saying that she had better receive the allowance, because she will have the spending of it.
What I cannot understand is why no allowance should be paid in respect of the first child. I cannot help thinking that it is unreasonable, if payments are to be made from the resources of the State to guarantee that children from whatever homes shall have a certain allowance, that they should only start with the second child. They should begin with the first child. I find myself in considerable agreement with the hon. Lady the Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill) in what she said regarding the child born out of wedlock—I dislike the term "illegitimate child." It is not the child's fault that it was born. When we are paying children's allowances it does not matter whether a child is born in wedlock or not. The endeavour is to help the child. Its treatment should be just the same, since it is the child we are thinking about. If that be so why cut out the child born out of wedlock because it happens to be the first, and as a rule the only, child? Anyone who sits on a bench of magistrates knows that as a rule a woman has only one illegitimate child, unless she is in fact a mentally


deficient. Certainly the child born out of wedlock should qualify for this allowance, like any other child. If that be so, and I think Christian charity and commonsense demand it, then the payment of allowances would have to be extended to all children whether they are the first child or not.
I heard an hon. and gallant Member on the other side of the House use the words "this miserable little 5s." That is misleading public opinion and Members in this House. There is £60,000,000 to £67,000,000 involved in this proposal, and no one can suggest that £60,000,000 is mere chicken-feed or a miserable little contribution. It is a matter of what it is possible to do under all existing circumstances and in the light of all the other calls on the public purse, and I think it would be a great mistake if we let it go out among those whom we represent that this 5s. was only a miserable little payment. On the contrary it is a very great step forward.
I say again that I believe a man should, if possible, discharge his own responsibilities. I believe that the basis of the life of this country is the home, and I am rather averse to any Governmental payment which might perhaps have the effect of disrupting the home, but in this case I think the Government should be praised for making this payment possible at the present time, and not sneered at as if what they are doing is really of no account, although no doubt during the Committee stage various Amendments will be brought forward. I have wondered why so much heat should be engendered on the subject of whether the mother or the father should receive the 5s. payment. Those who put forward the idea that if the father gets the payment he will go round to the pub and spend it and not give it to the mother are rather less than just to the homemakers of this country. My experience of those in humble homes is that the wife gets the wages and the man is allowed to keep something for himself. It is an insult to wage earners to suggest that they will try to "chisel" 5s. out of their own children. It is not true. It is also an insult to suggest that if the 5s. is paid to the mother the father will, in revenge, stop 5s. out of the payment he would normally make to her. We cannot legislate in this House for the harmony of the home. We may pass Acts

of Parliament until we are blue in the face without their having any effect in that direction, except that if we pass too many restrictive Acts we may indeed cause disharmony in the home.
On balance it is wise that the allowances should be paid to the mother. She will have the spending of it, and that being so all the other arguments about the status of women fall to the ground. Let us only concern ourselves with what is in this Bill, namely, that 5s. should be paid in respect of the child, and let us pay it to the person who will have the spending of it on the child's behalf, its mother.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Arthur Salter: I am glad that the Minister and a number of speakers who followed him have used the opportunity of the Second Reading of this Bill to express something of the respect which, I am sure, is felt in every quarter of the House for my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone). She stands in the great tradition of English humanitarian reformers, and the great line of English women reformers, from Florence Nightingale down. I am sure that generations yet unborn who benefit from this Bill, and from what will be built on this Bill, will remember her with honour as its patron saint.
I propose only to speak on one point to-day. I do not propose to follow the almost theological discussion between my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) and the Beveridge Report because, although I admire both the Report and its author, I do not think that the exegetical methods applied to the Holy Writ are now appropriate, and I want now only to refer for a moment to the destination of this allowance. Very few words will suffice, because the House has already shown an almost overwhelming and conclusive desire that the payment should be made to the mother. When I first saw the proposal in the Bill I was very much afraid that the Government would explain that there was some insuperable or very great difficulty either in law or administrative convenience in making the payment to the mother. I should have been rather difficult to convince on that score, because I have some experience of this kind of matter as head of the Division, under the old National Health Insurance Act,


which was particularly concerned with benefits, including benefit payable to women, under that Act. My right hon. and learned Friend has greatly assisted the House in its decision by making it perfectly clear, with his authority as the Minister concerned, that there is no administrative objection to payment being made to the mother, and by stating, with his great professional authority in the law, that as far as he is concerned he sees no legal obstacle in the way of such payment. We, therefore, have a clear question before us.
I have no doubt whatever in my mind that in social advantage, in the interests of the child, and, I would also add, in the interests of matrimonial relations, it is very much better that the payment should be made to the mother. Although it is perhaps to the interests of the child that we should first look, I do not quite agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby) who spoke of laws having no effect on status. I do not think it is true that any individual of either sex has a status which is immutable and not to be affected by anything which Parliament does. In this matter, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities said, if this Bill had been passed in the form in which it was introduced it would have had a very unfortunate effect upon the status of women. It would have thrown us back from the conception of marriage as a partnership into patriarchy. I welcome the indication the House has given to-day that they will use the opportunity which the Government has accorded, to vote that the payment should be made to the mother.

Mr. A. Bevan: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I am a little worried by the way in which the Debate is going. This particular question of whether the payment should be made to the mother or the father is the only one which we shall really have a chance of discussing in Committee; it is a purely Committee point. Yet all the other points of the Bill which are important, such as whether payment is to be made for the first child, and the amount to be paid, will be ruled out in Committee by the Money Resolution. Nevertheless, we are, on Second Reading, spending so much time on what we shall have ample opportunity of discussing in Committee,

and spending so little on the matters we shall have no opportunity of discussing then.

Sir A. Salter: I will not stand for more than a minute more between the hon. Member and other Members who may desire to discuss other provisions of this Bill. I only desire to say this last word. I imagine I should have argued rather more at length in favour of this proposal, except that the right hon. Gentleman has put the case so fairly and, indeed, I think without stating his own view on one side or the other has put so persuasively the theme I am trying to support, that if he has any doubt I suggest that he should only read his own speech in HANSARD, and I believe that he himself will, under this arrangement for a free vote, vote in the same Lobby as myself. I should have preferred the Government to take the line of saying: "We have changed our mind," but I think I can guess the reasons why they have not taken that line. If they desire the House to help them in this matter I think the House will be quite prepared, by an unmistakable vote, to help the Government out of their little domestic difficulty.

4.26 p.m.

Lady Apsley: I desire to be associated with those hon. Members on all sides of the House who have welcomed this Bill, which is a definite step forward in the social history of this country, lining us up with those more advanced countries in our own Dominions which have already placed similar Measures on the Statute Book. I deplore the controversy which has arisen regarding which of the two parents these children's allowances should be paid to. It is so fatally easy to put out propaganda on one side or another for the good or bad cases, but bad cases do not make good law. I think hon. Members are in danger of forgetting that we are discussing not children's allowances Bill but a Family Allowances Bill, and to this end, I would draw their attention to the fact that in the White Paper it is very clearly set out what are the objects of this Bill. They are:
That it is in the national interest for the State to help parents to discharge their responsibility properly.
The White Paper goes on, in paragraph 53:
In the absence of special circumstances the order for the payment of the allowance will be


made out in favour of the father as the normal economic head of the household but it is regarded as appropriate that the mother should cash the order and it will be drawn in such a way as to entitle her to do so.
That seemed to me very fair, and in full accordance with British tradition and custom. In all classes of the community I believe that in 999 cases out of 1,000 that custom will be followed fully and satisfactorily to the benefit of the family, because we must remember that the increased responsibility as the family grows is for more rent, more gas, more electricity, more bedding, more furniture and so on. It is not actually the amount of food which is going into each individual child, it is the family as a whole that has to be considered. Therefore this controversy is largely a mare's nest, if I may say so. In 999 cases out of 1,000 it will work amicably.
That which is best for the child is best for the family. I believe it is best for the family that the money, which legally is the entitlement of the father, should be actually drawn at the post office, for convenience sake, by the mother in the way the White Paper suggests. So I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman who is to reply, exactly in what form this order will be cashed at the post office. I visualise something like insurance cards or ration books, etc., issued to the family in the name of the father as head of the family, and in the bottom corner the statement that allowances will be drawn by "Mrs. Smith". If that is so, it seems to me perfectly easy to retain the typically English tradition based on the Greek concept of the father as head of his family—and rightly so, to my mind—but to enable the cash to be drawn by the mother. Some hon. Members have spoken as if it were something new and modern for the mother to be in the head place of the family, but that is not so. The matriarch is a very ancient form of social life. The hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), who made such an eloquent speech just now, mentioned Australia. I wonder if she saw the ancient Australian aboriginal tribes, living in the state of our forefathers in the Stone Age. If so, she will realise that it was the mothers who did all the supplying and feeding of the family, while the father was merely the warrior ignorant of all other responsibilities for his family. Matriarchy is an extremely primitive type

of civilisation alien to the English tradition and one to which I, for one, hope we shall not return. In fact, in these difficult days it is very important to do nothing to undermine the position of the father in the family. We who live in close association with the great cities of our country are seriously perturbed by the spread of juvenile delinquency, which is largely due to the absence of the father—in peace-time at sea or away at work all day, and now at the war. It would be a great mistake if we did anything to undermine the position of the father as the legal head of the family.
In conclusion, I want to say that I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend most sincerely upon this great extension of the social services of the country which will, I believe, help the lower levels of wage earners considerably, but I would strongly request that everything possible should be done to assist those tax-paying middle-class families, whose struggle to bring up high-quality children is quite as great to-day as the struggle of those on the lower levels a generation ago.

4.33 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan: The issue which has taken up almost three-quarters of the time so far is the quarrel between husband and wife. The Government have made it clear that that is to be the subject of a free vote. That is a point which we can support or oppose when the Bill is in Committee. All the pros and cons can then be argued in detail. On the Second Reading, the things that we ought to face are not those that we can alter in Committee, but those which are not now in the Bill, or cannot be easily altered on the Committee stage, and about which we want to influence the Government. One or two of my hon. Friends may be disappointed because I am going to engage, almost for the first time in the House, in the pastime of praising a Minister. It is a hobby that I do not usually indulge in. I have spent a good deal of time watching the Minister who introduced this Bill. In the past he held a Ministerial office in which he seemed to move about here and there, contributing, I thought, very little to the general work of the House and to his own status. Today he has delivered, not a brilliant speech but, what I prefer, a businesslike statement on the Bill. It was a clear state-


ment, which on almost every issue was easy to understand. To that extent he has raised his status in the House.
I pay my tribute to the hon. Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone) and to the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill). I remember a good many years ago going up to a Committee Room where the present Secretary of State for India—I do not know whether he was a Cabinet Minister then, because he has been one during most of my Parliamentary life, except when his political opponents were in power—took part in the meeting. We discussed family allowances, and the right hon. Member occupied the Chair. I would like, further, to pay tribute to a small group in this House who are not now present. Almost all of us in my party were at one time members of the Independent Labour Party. They, possibly earlier than anybody else, played a great part in this movement for family allowances, by the spread of pamphlets and other literature. They were championing this cause at the time of my first experience of the T.U.C. and the Labour Party, and one prominent man in our party who never deviated from that was the late Arthur Henderson.
Let me turn to what I consider the critical issues. They are things which are not contained in the Bill. There is a growing habit of forgetting that we may give a Bill a Second Reading and then not be able to deal with many of the things we want to deal with when it comes up in Committee. I leave aside this quarrel, because I cannot become enthusiastic about the question of the man or the woman. We are not really going to have a free vote on this issue. After all, I am married. I remember that at my first election the sheriff said that the next time I stood they would have a weighing machine, and not a counting machine, and when I came here people in the House of Commons looked upon me as a bit of a bully. It was a good job that they did not know me at home. At home I was "bossed" by 5 feet 3½ inches, and it was a good job that she was not 5 feet 6 inches, or my life would have been hell. The women have decided that they are going to get the 5s., and all of us accept that; and to that extent we are going to have a free vote of the House. Every-

body knows what will happen. I do not feel that it will matter very much, either way.
What are the three issues that cannot be altered later? First, there is the sum of 5s.; second, the question of the first child; third—and I feel that this is the sorest point of all—the question of the excluded classes. None of these things can be altered later, because to alter any of them would increase the cost of the Measure. Having passed the Financial Resolution, we cannot do anything about it. It is true that on the excluded classes we can vote against the Clause, but that would not bring those classes under the Bill.

Sir W. Jowitt: The hon. Member knows that that is for the Chairman of the Committee to rule. I should have thought that an Amendment saying that there was to be inclusion of these excluded classes would be in Order. Members cannot, of course, increase the 5s., and cannot include the first child.

Mr. Buchanan: I am perfectly certain that I am right. The Government have put in a Clause excluding certain people. We can vote against that Clause, but we cannot bring in the excluded people, because by doing that we should be adding millions of pounds to the national expenditure. In my view that is quite clear. These are the three issues which we can never discuss again for a long time. With regard to the amount, frankly I am not terribly disappointed with what the Government have done, because for many years I have been led to expect little, and when I get little I am not disappointed. For many years, with my colleagues, I fought for 2s. for a child, for 3s., and for 4s.; and now getting even a little almost pleases me. This 5s. is the amount which will be fixed for a number of years to come. But does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that 5s., plus what is proposed in the way of allowances in kind, is sufficient to maintain a child in decency? Some time ago I raised a discussion in this House on an issue in which I was rather unfortunate, I felt, because it applied too much to Scotland. We have a man in Scotland who, I think, has contributed more than anyone else to calling attention to facts in connection with child welfare—Professor Boyd Orr. His report on malnutrition made startling, ghastly revelations. I felt that if it had


been related not to Scotland but to some foreign country this House would have been far more angry than it was when these conditions were only across the Border.
In view of that Report on malnutrition I think that, even allowing for school feeding, 5s. is not sufficient. Before anything else is paid for—before food, before clothing—shelter has to be paid for; and it will be paid for. It is the first charge. No man who has ever faced the anxieties of the homeless, or has seen others homeless, will take any risks about that. This is a fact that this Bill does not look at. It is true that the Report of the Committee dealing with rents—of which I was a member—is now in the printers' hands, but I am certain that the Government must build hundreds of thousands of houses for the people.
Does anyone expect that the rents of those houses are going to be fitted in with the rent that is now paid? Are they to rise? If they are to rise, then these family allowances will disappear the next day. It is no use giving an allowance for a month or a year or two years. We are really transferring the allowance to the owner of the property. So I urge the Minister to look again at the relationship of fixed charges and see if the amount proposed is anything like sufficient. Rent is one of the first things that has to be considered, and, whether we make it £1 or 10s., it does not affect the number of children. When I was working as a young man we all faced unemployment, never knew the day it was coming. I have seen an uncle married on Friday and thrown out of work on the Saturday. It might be that, if logic had entered into it, marriage would have been the last thing that would have entered his head, but logic never comes in.
I take the view that the State's job is to see, once a child is living, that life should be preserved and that as many lives as possible should be preserved for the future. I am very anxious that something should be done about the first child, and I want the Minister to look into the question of the illegitimate child. I am not going to say that the mother of an illegitimate child is either better or worse than any other, but I think that she is a mother and that, as a mother, she is kind and decent to her child. She may get an order against the father. I have been

amazed, in my experience, at the number of women who never proceed against the father of their child, and I think they are sensible. All they do, if they do proceed against him, is, if he is a married man, to ruin his life and gain very little out of it. I think the best thing for them is to forget about the father and build the life of the child. Frequently, it is the grandfather who brings up the child, and often it never lives anywhere else. I had a case in my own division of a claim for pension by a man who was illegitimate. He had lived all his life under his grandfather's name, and, at the age of 65, his wife and family found out for the first time that it was not his proper name. There are grandparents, who receive no allowances for children, who have children at school, maybe one or two. Yet the illegitimate child which is kept by them and maintained by them is even recognised by the employment exchange, because the man can claim a dependant's allowance as the person taking care of that child. In such cases, I think the Minister ought to look again at these issues.
The preservation of life should be the first consideration. We should not forget that, in the history of this country, some of the men who have rendered it great service have been illegitimate children brought up by their grandparents or by others. I do not say that the illegitimate child should be given preference or anything like that, but I do say that it should be treated as a child and fitted into the general community. Illegitimacy used to have a stigma about it, but it has not the same stigma now as when I started, and, in Scotland, we have done very much to modify it. I take the view that illegitimacy has not a stigma nowadays, and that there are many other things which carry a greater stigma.
I want to make a plea for the inclusion of some of the excluded classes, and I appeal to the Minister, particularly in the case of the widow. Tins Bill proposes to give £57,000,000 to the parents of the children who are covered in the different groups. Take a typical case. John Smith has three children. He will benefit, to the extent of two children, by 10s. per week, or £26 per year. He will get that from the State without having to make any special contribution himself. He pays for his widow's pension while he lives, and his widow will get, not charity but a State pension from


contributions paid by him. This amounts to 10s., plus 5s. for the first child and 3s. each for the others, which comes to 21s., not out of the State, but out of a contributory insurance fund. What do we propose to do with that woman? When the father is alive and earning good wages, she gets £26 a year from the State, but when he dies she is to get 4s. a week from the State. All that we are going to give her is 4s. a week. In other words, she will get about £12 a year from State funds if the father dies, but while the father is alive and earning good wages she gets £26 a year from State funds. Is there any defence for that? Misfortune comes and she is rendered a widow, and we give her instead of £26, only £12. There is no defence whatever for that.
May I make a plea that, in the days after the war, we shall cut ourselves up into as few classes as we possibly can? I am beginning to get a little resentful about this. I do not say this purposely about hon. Members on the other side, but, truth to tell, in modem warfare and in modern development of society, the dividing line between the brave and the difficult is a very narrow dividing line. Take the case of the excluded classes in workmen's compensation. I said the other day that we should not make a dividing line between a man killed in a street accident and a person killed at work. Why make a difference between them? The widow of a man killed in war gets one pension, the woman whose husband is killed in the street gets another pension, and a widow whose husband died some other way gets another kind of pension. There are the three kinds of pension, and the children of these families walk down the street graded according to how their fathers have died. I do not want these classes. Life, to me, goes far deeper than that, and I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will look again at these categories and will not leave out those I have mentioned. I hope we will not create more Ishmaelites, will not leave people outside but will bring them in.
I welcome the establishment of the principle of family allowances. I have learned to expect little, and, when I get little, I am never disappointed, and I welcome the Bill, in so far as it goes, but I trust that both the Minister and the Solicitor-General, both of whom have enhanced their pro-

fession to-day, will not look upon these people from a mere legalistic standpoint, but will remember that they are engaged in the creditable work of making society more human. I wish them well, but I ask them not to be too hidebound about the categories I have mentioned, and to look again, and, if they can do it, embrace the people whom I think are worthy to be included in the scheme.

4.58 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has told us that he is henpecked at home. I almost regret that he ever married, because it is just like old times hearing him making these passionate pleas to the Government and really moving the heart of the House. Now that he is a happily married man, the House has lost something by his happiness at home. I am glad, however, that he congratulated the Government, because I think the Government ought to be congratulated, seeing how difficult it is to get on with social legislation. When family allowances were first mooted people on this side of the House said that it would break up the home, and the Labour Party and the trade unions would not have them at all. We have come a great way since then, and all because of one revolutionary woman. It is very difficult, when we look at the hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), to think of her as a revolutionary, but she is, and it is her work, and her vision and courage, that have really brought us where we are to-day.
I am grateful to the Government. This Bill just shows—and I am sure the hon. Member for Gorbals will agree—what a Coalition Government can do. You could not have got this as a party Measure; at least it would have taken another ten or 15 years. It really makes me deplore the fact that a Government who have done so much in war time, and are capable of doing so much, will soon probably fall apart. It is my absolute conviction, as a person who is more interested in social reforms than in any party, that unless the Left Wing of the Tory Party and the Right Wing of the Labour Party keep together, and work together after this war, we may have chaos, because the Diehards on one side, and the Left-Wingers on the other, meet as almost impossible people. The moderate people


on both sides could do great things for this country and, in my opinion, they are the people that the country would like to continue to work together.
I congratulate the Minister on this Bill and I am sorry that he could not bring in the widows as the hon. Member opposite said. With regard to the first child, I agree with the Government. It is right that people should take the responsibility of their first child. Too many people go lightly into matrimony, and go heavily out of it. If they could have some sense of responsibility, it would be a good thing. But there is one child I plead for, and that is the first illegitimate child. When the hon. Member opposite spoke about it, she said that these women were among the finest in the country but I cannot say that. I, myself, always have thought that women who resist temptation are finer than women who give way to it. Anybody can give way to temptation. It is the easiest thing in the world. There are magnificent people, both men and women, who have resisted temptation, and I am not prepared to say that those unfortunate girls are the finest in the country. That is where I disagree, but some of the finest mothers in the country are mothers of an illegitimate first child, and if the Government could make a concession in respect of such children, it would be a very good thing. It is the children we are thinking of, and they have a dreadful time.
I am delighted also that the Government are giving allowances both in cash and in kind. I have been interested in the welfare of children all my life, and I know that everybody deplores the ill-nourished child. That sort of thing almost breaks the heart of every mother and every good citizen. The results of such a condition are appalling. In getting an allowance in kind one can be certain that the children will get the necessary food. At one time we gave a free issue of milk but in some cases, though not in many, the children did not receive it at all and we have to be certain that, under this scheme, the children really get the food.

Earl Winterton: It is impossible to keep watch on every child.

Viscountess Astor: That is our job. The country has become child conscious. I appreciate the difficulties of providing free school meals during vacation, but if

they would only give free milk during holidays I would not make such a row about food, as the provision of meals would be difficult. There would be no difficulty in seeing that children were provided with free milk and I hope very much that the Government will see their way to provide it. On the question of whether the mothers axe to receive this allowance, that is absolutely settled. I do not think that 50 men in the House of Commons would vote against it. The Government are right, they "pass the buck" to the House of Commons; the House of Commons are listening to the women of the country, and the women are going to get it. It is right that they should. It has been said that normally good fathers give most of their money to their wives, but some of them do not.
I do not want to talk about the status of women. They make their own status. I know the difficulty and I have seen it in my own life, in my own family. Any woman who marries without a penny is in a very difficult position when it comes to the question of children. It does help people when they have something of their own. This allowance will be a great help to the family, and, far from causing dissension, it will make the home much better, if the woman has something of her own for her children, and we can absolutely depend upon her spending it upon them. We have been told what other countries, such as Australia and New Zealand, have done. New Zealand is very generous, but it must be remembered that New Zealand got into trouble and that it was the good old Mother Country who straightened things out for her.

Earl Winterton: The Noble Lady's remark will cause the greatest offence in New Zealand, and she ought not to make such a statement against a most patriotic Dominion.

Viscountess Astor: If you are never to speak because you are afraid to cause offence, you will never say anything. I am not in the least afraid of causing offence. I say "Thank goodness they did it," but they did get into trouble, and they ought to thank God that England came to the rescue. There is a tendency always in this House to look at what other countries are doing, and, if they are doing it well, to applaud them. I am glad that New Zealand led the way, but we ought to be very grateful and proud of


the Government that at this time in the history of the country, they can bring in a Measure like this. It is something we have wanted for years.
I do not want to hurt the feelings of anybody but I ask the Government to do something for those illegitimate children. It is a difficult subject. I know that people are not as hard on illegitimacy now as they used to be. Formerly there was a sham; there was a double standard of morals. The man got off, and the woman suffered. But however much social legislation we get, the real welfare of the children depends on the morals in the family. We want to do all we can but do not let us let our moral standards down. Much as I am in favour of doing something for these unfortunate women, surely we should praise more the woman who goes straight, and the married woman in the home. This is exactly what is being done in this Bill. I thank the Government and beg of them, if they can, to do something about the illegitimate children. Sometimes people ask "Has human nature changed?" Of course it has changed. Look at the legislation that is being passed. The change has not been so much in the hearts of Members of this House as in the fact that the women in the country now have the vote. I regard it as really wonderful and miraculous what has been done, and what is going to be done.

Earl Winterton: The women voters may not vote for women.

Viscountess Astor: They may not vote for women, as the Noble Lord says. There is still a prejudice, but I think it is passing. I end by thanking the Government for what they have done, by telling them that the country as a whole will be deeply grateful to them for taking this great step forward.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Lawson: There are not many things on which the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) and I agree, but I do agree with her that we should make our speeches in this House without bothering whether we are offending other people or not. On the point on which the Noble Lord interrupted her, my recollection is that it was not that New Zealand got into trouble and was helped out by this country, but that the

trouble was very largely caused by the financial policy of this country. That, however, is not really within the discussion to-day.
I rather wish to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) by speaking of some of those things which we can raise on the Second Reading and cannot raise later on. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir R. Acland) and I have Amendments on the Order Paper dealing with some points, which obviously cannot be discussed in Committee. The first deals with this question of payment to all children. Several speeches, including that of the hon. Member for Gorbals, stressed the point that if there was to be a comprehensive scheme of family allowances, all children should be included. I believe that case is made out, on consideration that these allowances should iron out the difference in the standard of living, between the man who has a family and the man who has not. Whatever your basis of a minimum standard of wages, unless you have adequate children's allowances for all children, you cannot get parity in the standard of living between the family man and the man who has not a family. On that ground I would support allowances for all children.
Indeed, I believe a case can be made out for paying an increased allowance in respect of the first child. I believe that the woman who leaves industry, who gives up her job because she is going to have a child, and then stays out of industry to look after that child, under a properly balanced scheme of family allowances should receive an allowance which would not only enable her to maintain the child, but compensate her, to some extent, for the loss of income she has been receiving in industry. However, we have not reached that stage yet. Indeed, we are in a very different case. If you look at this problem from the point of view of a limited amount of money to be distributed, there is something to be said for the Government's proposals. If the amount of money to be set aside for children's allowances is small, then extreme want will be relieved more by excluding the first child, than by giving a flat rate all round. Because the Government scheme excludes the first child, it is, in my opinion, an admission that the total amount of money being provided is inadequate for the purpose.


Therefore, to spread it where it is needed most, they have excluded the first child. I realise it would cost considerably more—I believe about 75 per cent. more—to include all children, and if we were really facing this problem, I think we should do that. Inasmuch, however, as the Government have decided on a certain amount of money, and inasmuch as I, as a back bench Member of this House, cannot really influence the Government to provide any more money, I think we have to realise that, with the amount of money they have given, the first child has to be excluded.
There is another point which I think we should discuss to-day because we cannot discuss it later. Again, this is covered by an Amendment already on the Order Paper proposing to double the rate of allowance for the fourth and every subsequent child. The point is that the thing which determines poverty is not the amount of income per family, but the amount of income per head, and however the minimum wage is fixed, if one has a flat rate of allowance for each child, with large families a point is bound to be reached where the income per head falls below the amount which may be considered a minimum. If we are, in any properly thought-out scheme of children's allowances, to remove want in large families, there should be some provision for increasing—I am suggesting doubling—the rate for the fourth and each subsequent child. I realise, of course, in a very large family of nine children or so, some will be over the age at which they will be receiving the allowance, and it is conceivable that there might be, say, six children in a family all drawing allowances There is another argument in favour of doubling the amount for the fourth and each subsequent child, and that is this. I believe that in a family which has four or more children, all of school age, it is reasonable to assume that the mother of that family ought to have some home help.
In the past, those who had large families, in the main being the poorer section of the population, have not been able to afford any home help at all, and I suggest that the way to make provision for home help for large families is to give an increased allowance for the fourth and every subsequent child. I am not suggesting that doubling the present rate of

allowance would meet that, but I believe it is a step in the right direction. Again, this would increase the cost, I calculate roughly by about 15 per cent. but, comparing the proposals with the Amendment which I have op the Order Paper, it would increase the income per head for a large family, say with six children, from 10s. 6d. per head—which is what they would receive under the Government scheme, assuming the father was earning £3 per week—to 13s. That is not very much but I believe it is a step in the right direction, and I stress that what I am proposing is not, as was suggested in the examples quoted from the Soviet Union and other countries, a drive to produce large families with a view to producing a lot of cannon fodder. I reject that idea completely. The proposal to increase the benefit for a large family is designed for the welfare of the child, and not at all for the purpose of increasing the population. I believe that when there is economic and political security in this country, and in the world, the whole business of the declining population will right itself, and I do not think, until we have done those things, any artificial stimulus will have anything to do with it at all.
With regard to the amount of the benefit, this subject has been touched on before, but I do not apologise for referring to it again, because this is the last opportunity on which we can effectively discuss the amount of the benefit, and I think we have to take this opportunity before it slips past for ever. The Minister rather implied in his opening speech that the Beveridge Report had suggested that 8s. was enough, that 8s. was the subsistence figure. I think, however, by this point in the Debate, it has been made perfectly clear that the original Report proposed that, assuming the cost of living from 1938 until the time when the scheme came into operation, had increased by 30 per cent., the figure should be a total of 9s. I think it is interesting to see how this 9s., which is the 1938 figure of 7s. increased by 30 per cent., is made up. Paragraph 228 of the Report states that it is made up as follows: Food, 5s. 11d.; clothing, 10d.; fuel and light 3d. Now the figure of 5s. 11d. is the assumed average taken from other figures given in Paragraph 227, which states that the diet for children, which has been worked out by the League of Nations authorities,


was calculated, on 1938 prices, to vary between 4s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., according to the age of the child. I question very much whether the figure worked out by the League of Nations can be regarded as adequate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) referred to the survey of Great Britain made by Sir John Boyd Orr. In the report of that Survey, which was based on the year 1934, there is produced a series of interesting graphs which show that until 10s. a week is spent on food the diet made available is not really adequate. The report shows that, unless 8s. to 10s. was spent in 1934, the diet was inadequate.
Taking that figure of 10s., what would be required to-day? The Ministry of Labour's figures of the cost of living for 1934–45 show an increase of about 43 per cent. Therefore, if you are to provide the income which Sir John Boyd Orr said was necessary for adequate diet, you will now have to provide 14s. a week. I believe that the figures in the Beveridge Report are the very minimum that could possibly be countenanced. I believe they were worked out, not in the main in relation to diet but in relation to political expediency. I believe that the whole Report was made on the basis of, "Let us produce a Report so modest that no one in the country can quarrel with it, and then we shall get it through easily, without controversy, in war-time, so that its proposals can be ready to be put into operation by 1945." If the figures of Sir John Boyd Orr had been taken into consideration the allowance for food should have been put not at 5s. 11d. but at something double or three times that amount.
The Minister, in opening the Debate, said that the Government had no intention of saving money in their proposal to cut down the figure from 8s. to 5s., and suggested that the extra amount was to be paid in kind. Compare the figures. The Beveridge Report assumes that the cash allowances will cost £110,000,000 a year at the beginning, and there is a cash allowance of 1s. a week on top of that which will cost another £25,000,000. Excluding the first child, the cost will be £135,000,000 under the Beveridge Scheme. Under the Government's proposals, school meals will cost about £60,000,000 and cash payments will cost

£57,000,000, a total of £117,000,000. The Government's proposals, therefore, are about 12 per cent. cheaper than those put forward in the Beveridge Report. The result of decreasing the amount in cash, and increasing the amount in kind, is to exclude children who are on holiday, those who are sick and those below school-leaving age, who need what is to be provided as much as anyone else. The Government's case is that this amount is not meant to be sufficient, but to be a share towards sufficiency. If the Government take that view then I do not think we can complain, but I think we ought to hold them to the necessity of increasing benefits in cash when the parents are on benefit, for then there is no one with whom the cost of the child can be shared. The logic of the Government's case is that when the father is on benefit the allowances ought to be increased.
I think the most important of all the financial considerations of the Bill is this: The logic of the Beveridge Report was based on benefits which are tied to the cost of living. The experts said, "Let us take 1938 as our datum line, calculate what is necessary for rent, clothing and food and so on, and arrive at the benefit figure." For the purpose of argument, the Report assumes that when the scheme comes into operation the cost of living will be 25 per cent. up on 1938 prices. I am not going to argue to-day as to how much the cost of living has gone up, and by how much I anticipate it will go up after the war, but one cardinal principle of the Beveridge plan was that benefits were tied to the cost of living, and I believe that the whole thing may prove to be a hollow sham unless we do tie these benefits to the cost of living. To-day the cost of living is controlled by the Government. By administrative action they can withdraw subsidies, and so increase the cost of living; they can give money with one hand and take it away with the other.
The best test of the sincerity of the Government's statement that that was not their intention would be to say, "We are going to tie the benefits to the cost of living because we know we shall keep the cost of living stable." If they say, "No, we cannot tie the benefits to the cost of living because the cost of living might go up," then I for one would look with


grave suspicion on their economic policy, because it would make me think that they were unable or incapable of keeping control over prices. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple and I have put down Amendments which suggest a formula which would tie these benefits to the cost of living, and I hope that the Government, between now and the Committee stage, will think about this matter and produce something which will tie the benefits to the cost of living in a manner which will be satisfactory to the House.
Hon. Members have spoken of the excluded classes. When the Beveridge Report was first published I did a lot of talking about it to men serving in the Army, and I found that there was no topic that aroused greater interest amongst those who were normally unpolitical. Time and time again I have given factual discourses on the Beveridge plan. In those days, late 1942 and early 1943, it was being taken as a guide for the future, as something that made people think that times were going to be better after the war than before. If I had said to these men that the children's allowance would not be paid to us who were in the Forces but would be paid to Members of Parliament and civil servants—to everyone except us—I should not have got very far. I hope the House will resist the proposal that the Government is going to take power to exclude the children of men who will still be serving in the Army of Occupation, or perhaps in the Far East, when the Bill comes in.
There have been pleas that these benefits should not be subject to tax, but I am glad they are. If there is a certain amount of money to be distributed, we should see that it gets first to those who want it most. We should distribute a flat rate and take some back in taxes from those who have the largest incomes. The idea that it is the middle classes who are most heavily taxed is not borne out when you look into the incidence of direct and indirect taxation. I am glad that the principle of taxation is introduced but I believe the whole of the benefits want increasing. I welcome the principle of the Bill because, apart from being a partial carrying out of the Beveridge Report, it introduces the idea that we must move towards a system in which the wealth of the nation is fairly distributed in accordance with the needs

of the individual, though it is a very small step in that direction.

5.34 p.m.

Mr. A. Bevan: We have an amazingly small House discussing what has been described as one of the greatest revolutions in our social insurance scheme. The suggestion is mat we are going to spend something like £117,000,000, of which nearly £70,000,000 is provided by the Bill, and one would have thought that a change of that sort would arouse far more interest than apparently it does. I think one reason is that the House is really tired of chewing this thing over and over again without any action being taken. The hon. Lady the Member for the English Universities (Miss Rathbone), who has been the foster parent to the scheme, is entitled to our congratulations for having brought it to this stage. I am sure she will not accuse me of being unkind when I suggest that it has been coming along so slowly that she will have to hasten it or she will be leaving the stage before she sees the appearance of the genuine article. The Government started consideration of it in 1940. It is now March, 1945, and no one can tell even now when we are going to have it, because we have now adopted the really vicious principle of postponing the operation of legislation until some appointed day. We used it very sparingly before the war, but now we are adopting it with complete abandon.
I believe we ought to tender our thanks not only to the hon. Lady but also to General Rundstedt, because he is also partly a parent of the Measure. That we at last have the Bill is not due to the efforts of the Government, or of my fight hon. Friend who is responsible for it, but to the fact that the Government finds itself with more Parliamentary time than it ever expected to have. We learned from the Prime Minister last week that the European war was expected to be over last October. We all know very well that with the collapse of the European war the Coalition Government collapses too, so that the Government has had five months added to its life by Rundstedt's winter offensive, and it had to do something with the time which Rundstedt has inadvertently given to this Parliament. So they have done it, but in the usual gingerly fashion. Instead of telling us that we are going to have this reform


they give us another White Paper, in the form of a Bill this time, because we drive them slowly. I congratulate the hon. Lady and her associates on the persistence with which they have driven the Government. There is no real enthusiasm for the job on the opposite side of the House. We have approached it with more circumstantiality in the Bill than in the White Paper and in the Report, but we have not got it yet.
I should like to make a protest on constitutional grounds against the use of this method of asking the House to carry legislation and then leaving it to the Executive to determine the date on which it shall come into operation. I consider it extremely vicious. Suppose the Coalition breaks up. Suppose that German military resistance collapses, and we find ourselves faced with the usual schisms which develop when the cement has dropped out of the Government structure, the cement provided by the necessity of continuing the war. Suppose that the rump of the Conservative Party is left and my right hon. and learned Friend has crossed the Floor and sits on this side, and we are speculating on the possibilities of an election. What have we done? We have presented the Government with an extraordinary instrument of mass bribery. They can either go to the country and say: "Immediately we come back we will put this into operation," or, three or four weeks before the election, they can operate it and they can also arrange for persons to receive the money at the proper time, and thus influence the atmosphere of the election. Far be it from me to suggest that such sinister designs are present. We all know the high-mindedness with which Conservative candidates always approach a General Election.
I seriously suggest, however, that there are all kinds of good constitutional reasons why the House should not leave it to the Executive to determine when certain benefits are to be given. If this is a good Bill, the sooner it is operated the better. What argument is there for postponing its operation? We have been wanting it for a long time, and we are now having it only because the Government's military plans miscalculated. We have been wanting it for a very long time, and I want to know why we

cannot have the benefits of the Bill immediately. In other words, why cannot the country be told that this Bill is passed by this Parliament to be operated upon a certain day, and that that is determined by 615 representatives of the people in the House of Commons and not by some decision reached for all kinds of reasons, good or bad, behind closed doors by the Executive? Then there are no good financial reasons for postponement, it has already been made clear that this scheme is not to be charged to an insurance fund. The Government are finding this money, so that we have not to wait for the assembly of reserves of money in the sense of the National Health Insurance Fund before the payments are made. At the same time, there is no argument that people cannot spend the money in the meantime because of rationing. That is an argument for avoiding every form of increase. If this money is paid out immediately and families cannot spend it because they cannot buy what they want at the moment, they can save it and spend it when they can.
Therefore, I really want to take serious exception, not to an innovation—it is certainly not the first time this has happened—but to a principle which, if it is extended, will have vicious constitutional results. We saw this, for example, in the case of the Education Act. The substantial benefit of that Measure was the raising of the school-leaving age, and many of us supported it, although we had considerable objections to many other features of the Act, because there was that sugar on the pill. We knew that if the school-leaving age was raised it would be necessary to undertake great additions to schools and things of that sort, and we would have other advantages. What happened? The fact is that the Education Act is now almost entirely administrative. We have lost effective control over its operation. The same thing may happen in connection with this Bill. I earnestly suggest to the House that we are already losing effective control over foreign policy; surely we ought to try and hang on to whatever control we have of our domestic affairs.
I would like to say a word about the excluded classes, and very important classes they are. It seems to me to be outrageous that the Government should have decided to exclude these classes at


all. We had an argument the other day, in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) took a conspicuous and brilliant part, over the new rates of unemployment insurance benefit. The Minister of Labour did not attempt to defend those rates. On the contrary, he said they were merely regarded as assistance to the unemployed family until they could find employment again. What justification is there, therefore, for not supplementing unemployment benefit by these allowances? I cannot understand the reason. We have had the same thing in workmen's compensation. Nobody has attempted to defend it on the ground that it is adequate. If the income going into a family as wages is so small that social insurance has to supplement it, the income is obviously smaller if the family is on unemployment benefit or workmen's compensation or is in receipt of one of the other forms of benefit. The only reason we are discussing this Bill is because, in the type of warfare that takes place in industry, the poor are hopelessly disadvantaged against the rich. If all the mechanisms at the disposal of the workers in modern industrial civilisation—the trade unions, the social services, literacy, propaganda services, organisations of various kinds, political enlightenment—if all these instruments at the disposal of the wage earners were adequate in their struggles with employers over fixing wage rates, we should not be discussing this Bill at all.
The normal functioning of the industrial system should see to it that incomes are provided adequate to maintain a workman's family without this legislation. These Acts of Parliament are merely attempts to redress the ill balance that exists in society between the poor and the rich, between the employer and the workman, with the addition, I must add, that the wage-earning system makes no provision for the size of families, a very important modification. Nevertheless, it is a modification, for the other factors still remain and the inadequacy of the incomes going into the homes is the main driving power, the main thrust in society behind these social insurance schemes. There is no drive for family allowances from the well-to-do. They have won in the tug-of-war. The drive comes from those who have lost. Who has lost more, who has failed more in the struggle, in this in-

sistent tug-of-war that goes on in society, more than the widow, for whom we have made special provision, more than the unemployed man, more than the man on workmen's compensation, who has been reduced from his earnings to workmen's compensation rates?
Pensions and soldiers' allowances are regarded as substitutions for the loss of wages. That is the justification for them. We take a man from his civil employment and put him in the Forces, and pay him an allowance or, when he is injured, give him a pension. That is supposed to be a substitution for what he has lost, so that he is financially back where he was. Therefore, why withhold family allowances from him when all the rest are going to have it? What is the argument? It is merely the pedantic argument that a man ought not to receive two forms of income from the State for different categories of benefit. That is sheer pedantry. There is no reason why all the other allowances, pensions and rates of benefit should not have this allowance superimposed on them. I would like to have more substantial reasons than we have had so far, especially when we come to the Committee stage. I apologise for mentioning it now, but I do so because it may be able to short circuit a good deal of discussion when we come to that stage.
I am not going to argue much about the difference between 5s. and 8s. I am much more concerned about getting right principles adopted. If we do that it is much easier for us later to consider amounts. We can always add to the 5s. later, when we come to review the whole of the social insurance system. It is more difficult to get wrong principles put right if we allow them to pass now without any opposition. That is why I do not agree at all with this exclusion of the first child. I do not think the justification for these allowances is encouragement to have families. It may have that effect. I had an argument with the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities some years ago about this. I cannot, find irrefragable evidence—I will admit there is tendentious evidence—that the payment of family allowance has any effect on the birth-rate. Statistically, it is not borne out. Of course, there is always the answer that we do not know how far the birth-rate might have fallen if family allowances had not been made.

Miss Rathbone: I admit that there is no such positive evidence that they may increase the birth-rate. In any case, the proposed allowances are so small that they only just tip the balance in the right direction. We still have the lowest birth-rate in the world.

Mr. Bevan: The poorer people have the biggest birth-rate. I am much more frightened about the decline in the size of families among the middle-class. I suggest that the main reason is the appalling snobbishness of the middle-class. They will insist upon paying such huge sums for the education of their children in all kinds of inferior institutions that they cannot afford to have many children to educate. If my hon. Friends opposite who belong to the middle and upper classes, or are trying to climb there—or perhaps are falling away from there—would only send their children to educational establishments that are much cheaper and better they would be able to afford larger families. I am certain that any inquiry into the outgoings of the middle-classes on educational charges would show that they are extremely high, very high indeed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The hon. Member admits that the economic argument applies to the middle-class, while he denies them the right to have the 5s. family allowance.

Mr. Bevan: I admit that the economic argument applies to them, merely because they will insist upon a higher rate of stupidity than the rest of the population. [An HON. MEMBER: "We are a free country."] Certainly, and there is no reason why hon. Members cannot be as stupid as they like. I agree that it might be the fifth freedom. I seriously suggest that there is no justification at all for the denial of the money to the first child. It is at that stage, after the first year, when the young husband and wife have settled down, that the first shocks begin to occur. I should have thought that the more cushions we provided for that period the better, and that we should not wait until later on, when difficulties begin to accumulate.
We are up against a really important problem with the illegitimate child. We cannot pay the illegitimate child an allowance merely because it is illegitimate without giving rise to a discrimination

which is extremely unwholesome. At the same time, we cannot exclude the illegitimate child from the benefits of this allowance without anti-social consequences. Is it not therefore much simpler to bring the first child in, when the illegitimate child would be included with the rest, rather than to have this thing raised over and over again? I entirely agree that there are girls who have had illegitimate children who do not want to marry the fathers.

Mr. Buchanan: It might be a great mistake for them to marry the fathers.

Mr. Bevan: Yes, certainly, on grounds of strict morality, it would be far better not to marry them, than to marry them. Where the woman is a much superior creature to the father, of the child, all kinds of domestic maladjustments and crises would exist, in a framework of misery and depression which would be created for the child. Should we withhold from a woman of that type the benefits of this legislation? I seriously suggest that the Government ought to think about this matter again and give way to the overwhelming opinion of the masses of people in this country.
With that, I sit down. I am delighted that the Bill has been brought forward but I deplore that its benefits are withheld. The Government should put it into operation immediately. One of the most important and attractive by-products of this terrible war is that we have been compelled to pay such attention to our children that they are better off than they were in peace-time. That is owing to the feeding in schools. We have been able to prevent what happened in the last war, when the weakest of our population suffered. I hope that we shall continue to give them the benefits of our farsightedness and civilised attitude in this matter, and not spoil what may be a good structure by inattention to incidental detail.

5.58 p.m.

Mr. Summers: At the outset I should offer a word of apology for not having been able to hear many of the speeches that have been made in the course of the Debate, but no doubt ignorance will be bliss, for I shall be able to proceed quite unaware that I may be repeating what other hon. Members have said before me. First I should like to add my word to the welcome given to the Bill.


I agree that as a contribution to the solution of our population problem it is unlikely to make very much difference, one way or the other. The evidence to the contrary is not very convincing.
There are two main reasons why this principle of children's allowances is overdue. The first was mentioned by the Minister, namely that only by treating the responsibilities of the worker otherwise than through his wages, will it be possible to maintain "the rate for the job." It clearly is a fact that workers with children have additional liabilities and responsibilities compared with those who are without children. It is necessary, in my view, to maintain the principle of "the rate for the job," so those responsibilities must be taken care of if that principle is to be preserved.
The second reason why I have always felt that the principle of children's allowances is good, is that it helps to keep a gap in any national insurance scheme between those on benefit, and those on wages. If the children are recognised only when a man is on benefit and ignored when he is earning wages—conditions which used to prevail and which I hope will not prevail any longer—the man with a large family on benefit came very much too close to the minimum wage level to ensure a gap between the two. It was for that reason, no doubt, that when the Beveridge Report came out, the principle of children's allowances was regarded as a fundamental pre-requisite of any satisfactory system of national insurance. The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) raised the question of dealing with a subject of this kind, and of having an appointed day, to be settled by the Executive later. I am not competent, and I have not the experience, to comment on that from a constitutional point of view, but it seems to me very improper to bring in, at this moment, a scheme of this kind, in which the taxpayer's money is to be paid to everyone, regardless of whether he is in need or not, when we are only financing about 50 per cent. of our current expenditure associated with the war.

Mr. A. Bevan: The hon. Member alarms me. What does he mean by that? Does he mean that the operation of this Bill should now be postponed to some indefinite period when our national finances have adjusted themselves to better proportions?

Mr. Summers: It is a question of degree. I would say that, so long as we are providing only £1 of every £2 we are spending, it is no time to give out money which is borrowed from the future, or from someone else here and now, to people who, quite clearly, are not in need of it. It does not necessarily mean that the Budget has to be literally balanced in the sense we understood that term before, but it is when something very much nearer to that position than the present situation has been achieved that an arrangement of this nature should be put into operation.

Mr. Silverman: I understand that the hon. Member objects, in principle, to paying out this money when the State is already paying out more money than it raises. I take it that he does not wish to reduce our present expenditure to the amount that we raise. He thinks it should be spent, although we do not raise it. On what principle would he allow it to be spent?

Mr. Summers: It is difficult, without seeing that last statement written down, to follow what the hon. Member has in mind. But I do not intend to be drawn off into any academic discussion about what we should do with our money at the present time. It is one thing to improve the lot of those who have fallen by the way, as has happened in the case of supplementary pensions and other matters during this war, when we are not anything like paying our way in this war. It is quite another thing to distribute substantial sums to a very large number of people who, by no reasonable test, can claim it on grounds of need. That is the only point. It is a question of degree. Under present conditions I say that the time is not ripe for the operation of this Bill, and on practical grounds I would not quarrel with the decision of the Government to defer, until the future is more clear, the appointed day for the start of this Measure.
Finally, I wish to bowl a brief "over" in what may be known perhaps as the "parents' match." I should like to stake a claim to participate in the match on the side of the mothers' team. If one looks at it from the theoretical point of view, the father is the recognised financial head of the family. There may, perhaps, be a technical point in that, but that has


largely been destroyed when we learn that maternity benefit, for which the father has contributed, is at present paid to the mother as of right. So a substantial departure from that principle has already been made. Everyone would wish that the sums should finally reach the destination, and be put to the use, to which they are intended to be put, but I would have said there was a far greater chance of that happening if it was claimable as a right by the mother, with a satisfactory provision for an alternative method to be adopted where it was clear that the mother was an unsatisfactory person to have it. I do not know if anyone is to open a sweepstake on the outcome of the free vote of the House on this matter, but I trust that the services rendered on this subject, by the hon. Lady the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) will be rewarded by the mothers' team winning the parents' match.

6.6 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: I think my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of National Insurance will be very pleased with himself after listening to the Debate which has taken place on the Second Reading of this Bill. I am a little alarmed however that the real mind of the Conservative Party was left undisclosed until we heard the final speech from a back bencher, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers). I think my hon. Friends behind me will also be a little apprehensive lest the power of the hon. Member may be greater in determining the date of operating this Bill when it becomes an Act than that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister.

Mr. Summers: The hon. Member flatters me.

Mr. Davies: When the Coalition comes to an end I am expecting my right hon. Friend the Minister to cross over to where he ought to have been from the beginning. As this is a Second Reading Debate I do not intend to deal with the details of the Measure. I have lived long enough to see all the social insurance schemes of this country come into operation, except the poor law system. I remember the first Act of Parliament dealing with workmen's compensation.

Sir Patrick Hannon: In 1802?

Mr. Davies: No, nearly a century later. I remember the argument then put forward that the employer could not afford the premiums. I also remember the first old age pensions scheme for 5s. a week. It is a very strange turn of events that the nation to which we belong began by paying 5s. a week to old age pensioners over 70 based on an income test now concludes its social service efforts by paying 5s. a week in respect of the child. It might have been very much better if that order had been reversed and we had commenced with the children. I have been very pleased that no one in this Debate has claimed that the payment of this allowance will have any substantial effect upon the population problem. It would have been better if the Report of the Commission on Population had been issued before this Debate ensued. It has been my lot to study the reports of the International Labour Organisation on this problem of population and children's allowances. I have assured myself, so far as reading and study can go, that monetary contributions have not the slightest effect upon the birth rate in any country. Let us be clear that the idea of children's allowances originated from the Latin countries of Southern Europe and that it was based, in the main, on religious considerations.

Miss Rathbone: May I say, frankly, that that is quite untrue? An experiment began in France first, but our own Dominions have led the way more than any other countries. There is really no ground for claiming that it comes especially from the Roman Catholic countries of Southern Europe.

Mr. Davies: I was once in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, between the two great wars and I found traces of family allowances within the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, which could be traced back for about 40 years. If hon. Members care to inquire after this war they will find the same history of social service in Hungary too. I leave that question, by repeating that no one has claimed that this 5s. a week will, of necessity, increase the population of this country.
Let me turn to other points raised in the Debate. I happen to be a father, and know what it means to bring up a family. It may interest hon. Members to know


that I got married on 26s. a week; we had three children before I earned more than 30s. a week. If hon. Members care to inquire into the family life of the working people of this country, they will find that it is very much more expensive to feed and clothe the first child than the second and third children. As a matter of fact, the cradle and christening robe are bought for the first child, and generally used for all subsequent children.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: And grandchildren.

Mr. Davies: Yes; I know a christening robe which is about 60 years old, and has been used for several generations of the family. The issue that has aroused most controversy is whether the amount should be paid to the father or the mother. I am very pleased that the question of the payment of maternity benefit has been raised. That is paid, as a right, to the mother. I have raised that point elsewhere, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Millions of pounds have been paid in maternity benefits since the National Health Insurance Scheme came into operation, and I have yet to hear any complaint of abuse of that money by the mother. When the father is to receive the maternity benefit, for which by the way he has paid contributions, the mother must give a certificate to that effect. There is no basis therefore for refusing to pay this 5s. to the mother. In addition, there are probably millions of widows who have already received pensions and children's allowances under the National Insurance scheme, and I have never heard anyone complain about those payments to women either.
I cannot understand where hon. Members get their ideas, about family life. Some hon. Members, including some of my hon. Friends on this side, tell strange tales about the family life of this country. It is a new suggestion to me that the married woman must humiliate herself and beg so much per week from her husband. On the contrary what I experienced, when I worked in the pit, was that every collier I knew placed the whole of his wages on the table at the week-end, and his wife handed him 2s. 6d. or 5s. as pocket-money. These notions about wives asking in a humiliating fashion for money from their husbands belong, I am afraid, to the aristocracy, and not to the working class. In fact, I see no prospect

of decent relations between husband and wife, especially in a working-class home, unless the wife handles the money in the manner I have indicated. In any case, it is the mother who buys the food and children's clothes. Even if you paid the 5s. to the father, it would be the mother who would spend it.
I am sorry that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not here, because she attacked the trade union movement on this issue as she has done before. She said that the trade union movement was against family allowances. Perhaps she will be good enough to read to-morrow what I am saying now. The trade union movement has never opposed family allowances where the money is paid direct from the Treasury. I have opposed in this House the payment of family allowances when the money was to come from the wages pool of each industry, as happened on occasions on the Continent. I would oppose this Bill too if it were proposed that the mining industry, for instance, should be separated from other industries—and the engineering industry in the same way—and family allowances paid from the wages fund inside the industry. The trade union movement has also opposed a contributory scheme of family allowances. But, at long last, we have a Bill covering a non-contributory scheme; the whole of the money is to be paid from the Treasury; and, therefore, I welcome this Bill and feel certain that the trade unions welcome it too.
Let me see if I can sum up rightly what the hon. Member for Northampton meant to say. He said in effect that you cannot very well ask the Minister to put this Act into operation, and pay 5s. per child per week out of the Treasury, so long as we, as a nation, are spending more than we are earning.

Mr. Summers: The only point on which the hon. Gentleman might mislead anyone who reads what he is saying, is that I made the distinction that these payments are intended to go to all, irrespective of need. That is why the position of our finances is of infinitely greater importance than would be the case if the payment were confined to those in need.

Mr. Davies: The hon. Gentleman apparently assumes two things. He would not mind the Act being operated forthwith, if the payments were based on a


means test and our finances were sound. But if we are to wait until the finances of this country are in the healthy condition which I assume he has in mind, this Measure could not come into operation for very many years to come. Where do we stand as a nation about finance? We are told, officially, that we shall require very nearly as much money as the total pre-war Budget to pay interest on the present National Debt. According to that, we should not get this Measure put into operation for a decade.

Mr. Summers: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman would, without difficulty, pay out children's allowances to all from borrowed money?

Mr. Davies: We are paying millions of pounds to soldiers' children now from borrowed money, and I see no escape from doing it when they return to civil life. If the hon. Gentleman, and the Tories generally, have come to the conclusion that this Act cannot be put into operation until we are in the position that we need not borrow money for our national services, the House of Commons has wasted the whole of its time to-day. I trust that the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us something more encouraging than that—if he has sufficient influence over the Tory Party—though I am not sure whether that is so. As stated, I welcome the Bill; I think it a very worthy Measure, and ample tribute ought to be paid to all who have been agitating for years that this deed should be done. Finally, I understand that the complaint of parents who refuse to have children is not, exclusively, that they have not enough money to rear them; the housing problem is one of the paramount issues confronting large families. Then parents are beginning to say that they refuse to bring children into the world to provide cannon fodder for wars. That, however, would be a very large argument, though I can well imagine that the peoples of all the countries of Europe must feel like that at present. I can only add, in conclusion, that I welcome this Measure.

6.2 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): My first task is to express the gratitude of my right hon. and learned Friend and myself for the reception which this Bill has had from the House. Despite

the amount of time that has been devoted to the issue of whether the allowances should be paid to the father or the mother, practically every one of the 19 speakers to whom I have listened with so much pleasure has taken the opportunity of welcoming the Bill and commending his exposition of it. But the very wealth of speeches that we have had would make it, perhaps, of less value to the House if I were to go through them all chronologically and deal with each of the points, very interesting though they were. I think that the House would find it more useful if I took the half-dozen broad issues that have been raised, and tried to put my views on the various points that have already been placed before the House.
The first of these, to which I have already drawn attention, is the question whether the allowance should be paid to the father or the mother, and, to continue the figure of speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Summers) the score at the time that I rise is 18 speeches to one in favour of the mother. If I may, with deference, deal with the one speech, that from the Noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol (Lady Apsley), who had the temerity to commend the case of the father, I only want to say that she was absolutely right in her views of what the Bill provided, in saying that the intention was that when the order book was issued it would be made out in the names of both parents and either would be able to cash the order. That I think was the point on which the Noble Lady asked for information; but, on the broad point, she is in a single minority. That is the position in which the House is expressing its views.
Broadly, there have been three reasons which have commended themselves to different hon. Members of the House, quite irrespective of divisions of party, on this point. The first is the innate evil which rests in man and the high proportion of husbands would would be liable to misuse this financial trust. My hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Miss Rathbone) says that it might be as high as 10 per cent. I could not help feeling that, in the mind of the hon. Member for West Fulham (Dr. Summerskill), even a higher percentage lurked in her view on that subject.

Miss Rathbone: May I be allowed to say that I did not put forward any definite


estimate? We cannot know until we see. I based my criticisms in the sense that I said that, supposing difficulties arose in one case in 10, it might mean 250,000.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if I have been too optimistic with my hon. Friend in regard to husbands as a class, but I say that that was one position that was taken up, and that, generally, the House being composed as it is, I do not think that it was a reason which commended itself to the majority of the House, who, of course, are of the male sex and are husbands. The second reason was the increase in the status of motherhood and the work of the mother to-day. That was an ideal which we all shared, and I think that none of us would wish to avoid paying that respect. But I think that the third reason, which was that the housewife or mother is the person who is the most knowledgeable about how the money should be spent and most able to decide the spending, was the one which commended itself to most of the speakers and received the most acclaim from the House. I think that that, fairly, is the way that it was put, and the House, as has been pointed out by many of my hon. Friends, will have the opportunity of deciding that point on a free vote on the Committee stage. I only want to make it clear, as I have done to the noble Lady the Member for Central Bristol, that the Bill, and the scheme envisaged in the Bill, did quite clearly set forth that the wife would be entitled to cash the order and get the money. We were looking at what, despite all that has been said today, I believe to be the position in the vast majority of cases—that the husband-does turn over his money. My hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies) and I know Lancashire very well, and we know that the custom still persists there that the money is handed over. I am sure that is the position in the vast majority of cases, and I cannot help feeling that the tremendous importance of this problem has been slightly exaggerated in the most interesting discussion that we have had to-day. Still, the views are clear, and the House knows that it will get the opportunity of doing what it desires.
Now I come to the two problems—there are really three—which specially interested my hon. Friends the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) and the Mem-

ber for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) in that they are problems which arise on Second Reading, or on the Financial Resolution, and then not again. The first of these is the question why there should not be an allowance for the eldest child. I think it would be helping the House if I gave some indication of the problem which that raises. There are 3,000,000 one-child families, and there are 2,600,000 families of two or more. Therefore, there are 5,600,000 first children out of the 10,000,000. The Bill provides for 4,400,000 children, and that costs £57,000,000. It is, therefore, a mere matter of arithmetic that it would cost another £73,000,000 to pay 5s. a week to 5,600,000 children, making a total for the cash portion of the scheme of £130,000,000 a year. The position as to the first child was set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir W. Beveridge) in his Report, in paragraph 417, in which he says:
First, it can be argued that the allowances for children should be regarded only as a help to parents and not as relieving them entirely of financial responsibility.
That is the way in which we put this Bill forward. It is not completely relieving but is a help to the parents. My hon. Friend goes on to say:
There is substance in this argument. To give full subsistence allowances for all the children of a man or woman at work may be described as wasteful and certainly cannot be described as a measure indispensable for the abolition of poverty; very few men's wages are insufficient to cover at least two adults and one child. When the responsible parent (that is to say the parent on whom the children depend) is earning, there is no need to aim at allowances relieving the parent of the whole cost of the children.
And so my hon. Friend goes on in that strain. The argument which we suggest is worthy of the consideration of the House is that when the parent is earning, his wages will be sufficient to provide for himself, his wife and one child. That is a basis which is often taken in many circumstances which are known to the House, and therefore the heavy expense would not be justified, bearing in mind the other calls that we have, even in this field of our national activities at the present time. There is the other point, which I am sure the House will bear in mind, because it is important in this and other aspects of the matter, that the expense to the parents of providing for the first and only child will be materially


reduced by the provision of the free meals and milk in the other part of the scheme. Therefore, we are acting in accordance with the original suggestion of the hon. Member. We have sound reasons for maintaining this attitude, and when one considers the additional cost, I suggest to the House that it is not the best use—I am not saying it would not be a good use in normal and ordinary circumstances—of so great an additional sum in the circumstances in which we are at present placed.
The next broad point which my hon. Friends rightly wanted emphasised at this stage of the Bill is, Why is the allowance 5s. and not the 8s. suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed? There has been considerable discussion and my hon. Friend's Report has been quoted from at a number of places, and I think in the end he himself was prepared to agree that he was contemplating that the allowance should be both in cash and in kind, but that he preferred that the greater part of it should be in cash. I would like, as the hon. Member for Skipton (Mr. H. Lawson) is in his place, to give my version of the costs again, because the House ought to realise and face up to the cost. They were slightly different from those published by my hon. Friend and, therefore, I would like him to consider them and to consider the basis on which I am putting them. I agree with the figure that he quoted as to the cost of the Government's scheme, as he quoted the Government figure of £57,000,000 for the cash benefit and £60,000,000 for the kind benefit, making £117,000,000. But if we take what was suggested by my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, then I differ from him again. As a mere matter of arithmetic, if you are paying 8s. while we are paying 5s. you get a figure of £92,000,000 as compared with £57,000,000. Then I add the actual cost, which my hon. Friend was valuing at 1s. a week, of school meals as they exist to-day—not as they exist under the scheme which, we hope to bring into force as soon as is humanly possible—which is just over £16,000,000. So the cost of the scheme proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed would, on that view, be £108,000,000 as compared with our £117,000,000.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is the learned Solicitor-General taking the actual cost or the total cost, as there is an appallingly high cost of administration in regard to the Ministry of Education?

The Solicitor-General: The hon. Member is quite right. I do not think that he was in his place when that point was discussed and I was not, of course, going to avoid it. I think he will agree with me, because I want to take him with me on the first question, Are the Government being niggardly as compared with the scheme of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed? My figures are an answer to that question. It is not the question of cost that decided us on the kind as against the proper proportion of cash. I would like to make this point with regard to the kind, that it applies to all children, as I emphasised, including the first child.
There is no Income Tax payable upon it. Whatever be the value of money a square meal and milk retain their value. There is a very definite lessening of the mother's toil. We all know what the communal mid-day meal means at the present day. Judging from my own children, a child makes a far greater effort to be good mannered, to conduct itself better at table, from the competition of the communal life. All these things, I believe, are of great importance and, therefore, it cannot be put at us that we are being niggardly when there are great advantages to be gained from an allowance in kind.

Mr. Bowles: The hon. and learned Member is dealing with a cost of £117,000,000. How much of that does the Treasury estimate it will get back in Income Tax?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will understand that the amount that will come back in Income Tax depends on the scale of taxation applicable to the various people that will benefit. Taxation will hardly touch the poorer people. It will be very slight on those who have only a small portion of taxable income and tax would be at the lower rate. Therefore there are too many factors for me, I am afraid, to give my hon. Friend an estimate. I was going to deal with the position of Income Tax as one of the main points, and if there is any further point I hope my hon. Friend will interrupt me again.

Mr. Driberg: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman leaves the question of school meals, may I ask whether the Government have considered again the possibility of making any interim cash grant in lieu of meals in those areas where meals are not obtainable and may not be for two or three years?

The Solicitor-General: My right hon. and learned Friend has considered the point, but he cannot at the moment see how that can be done. We are always anxious to consider it, and also anxious to consider what we think is an equally important point, that of trying to gear up the school-meals side of the scheme as soon as possible.

Dr. Haden Guest: I am sorry to interrupt, but this is an important point. The administration of school meals depends on the local education authorities. It is surely not difficult to deal with those authorities who do not make arrangements for school meals, and to pay cash allowances if they will not do it; or, alternatively, which is the better plan, to gear up by exerting very severe pressure on the backward authorities, who exist, to do the job. If that can be done, how long is it going to take?

The Solicitor-General: I do not think my hon. Friend was in when my right hon. and learned Friend answered the question in opening the Debate.

Dr. Guest: I asked the question.

The Solicitor-General: Then my hon. Friend knows the answer.

Dr. Guest: I was not given a proper answer.

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry if my hon. Friend was not satisfied with the answer. He was certainly given an answer, although I hope he will forgive me for my slightly bad memory, because it is quite a long time since I started listening to the Debate and I cannot remember every interruption that has been made in it. However, on the general point, he ought to have heard it from my right hon. and learned Friend, and he has heard it from mc, that the second of his suggestions of gearing up the local authorities to get this scheme into operation is, we think, the best method of dealing with it.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale interrupted me, I made clear

that that dealt with the charge of niggardliness, and I suggest there is a complete answer to that charge in the comparison with the scheme of my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. There is, of course, the point that the cost of the kind portion of the scheme is considerably higher, as my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, but even at that estimate of £20,000,000, there is still a very small difference between the two schemes. It would reduce our scheme to £97,000,000 net as compared with £108,000,000, and I would suggest to the House that even on these figures there is an answer to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed that the Government scheme is falling below the amounts that he thought were necessary. The difference even on that is so small as to make it impossible that one figure could be right and the other could be wrong. However, I do urge the House to remember that we are putting this scheme forward as a supplementary scheme for aiding the income, not for taking the place entirely of the income which the parents can provide. I think the next point—

Dr. Edith Summerskill: I have listened very carefully, hoping that the hon. and learned Gentleman would deal with the point of the only illegitimate child. He has dealt with the first child, but not with the only illegitimate child.

The Solicitor-General: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend. I am sorry that my order is not the same as hers, but I was going to deal with that.

Dr. Summerskill: I thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had finished with that point.

The Solicitor-General: Perhaps I may explain the order that I had in mind, and then I shall be glad to answer any other point. Having dealt with the question of payment to the father or mother—which we really threshed out earlier in the Debate—as I have, very shortly, giving a resumé of the arguments to the House, I then wanted to deal with the first child, which I have. I have also dealt with the 5s. plus kind against 8s. point, raised by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. I was then going to deal with the question of non-duplication, which I thought was the broadest issue of the greatest interest to the House; then with


the question of Income Tax which has been raised. Then I was going to deal with a number of shorter points, including the question of the illegitimate child, but I welcome the interruption of my hon. Friend on this because I am very anxious that no point which is of interest to the House should be omitted from the Government reply—if I am not boring the House by going on so long? [HON. MEMBERS: "Not at all"].
On the question of non-duplication, I should like to remind the House of the way in which it is put in the Act. As far as the Services allowances are concerned, they are dealt with in Clause 13 in the way that unless the Minister does make regulations, then both the Service allowances and the present allowance will be paid. If my hon. Friend the Member for West Fulham will look at her speech again, or think back to it, that was the point where—with great respect to her—she put it rather the wrong way with regard to Clause 13. As Clause 13 stands, both allowances will operate unless my right hon. and learned Friend makes a subsidiary instrument deciding that there will be some reduction or modification, so that it was not right for her to say that as the Bill stands the children of someone who is receiving an Army pension are automatically excluded. However, when we come to Clause 14—and this is the point which engaged the attention of both my hon. Friend the Member for Gorbals and my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale—it is the other way, that in the case of someone who, at the moment, is getting workmen's compensation or unemployment benefit or some benefit under the Contributory Pensions Act, when family allowances come into force, then they cease to get the original benefit—that is, there is no duplication of benefit. Again it is rather important to be exact. I hope the House will not think I am being pedantic, because it is not my intention, but it is important to see the structure. The structure there is that you do not get the original benefit—I will come on to the effect it has on Income Tax under a separate heading—

Mr. A. Bevan: Because the new benefit is higher.

The Solicitor-General: Because the new benefit is higher. I was going to take the example of my hon. Friend the Mem-

ber for Gorbals, which was a very clear one, under the Contributory Pensions Act. There you have your 10s. and 5s. for the first child and 3s. for the other children; under this you would, with respect to the second and third children, get 5s., but you would lose the 3s. My hon. Friend said that the net gain is only 2s. a week in respect of each child. The other example given by the hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) was with regard to workmen's compensation. He put it this way, I think: He said that under Part II of the scheme of Industrial Injury Insurance a worker will contribute five-twelfths to the workmen's compensation scheme and, therefore he ought at any rate to get five-twelfths compensation. Perhaps he might have put his case higher and said that the worker ought to get more because it was a contributory scheme. As I have emphasised, the effect of the Bill is that the two pensions do not run at the same time, that is, either the workmen's compensation or the contributory pension.
I appreciate the insurance argument which has been put forward by hon. Members. They say that these payments are in the nature of a return for insurance premiums, as if they had taken out an insurance policy to cover the same risk. I ask the House to consider that question broadly, and in the light of the whole work on which we are now engaged. We are trying, while never forgetting the whole picture, to hammer out point by point improvements in national insurance and social conditions over the whole of the national field. Each of these advances has had to be made with great consideration of all the factors and of the position in which the country is to-day, remembering that every advance we make has to be paid for by our efforts and our determination to increase the national production, and improve the national position in order that we may carry this load, and make it relatively light, to the full flow of our power.

Mr. Bevan: There are two points of great substance. One is that in these cases of unemployment insurance benefit and workmen's compensation the beneficiary will have already paid for his benefit. The Solicitor-General has dealt with that point, but there is this second point, and that is that unemployment


insurance benefit and workmen's compensation are in substitution for loss of earnings. We have the position where a man remains at work, suffers no loss, and will receive 5s. benefit, while the man who has partial restitution of his wages will not receive the benefit of this 5s. That creates an intolerable anomaly.

The Solicitor-General: I am genuinely obliged to my hon. Friend for putting that point so clearly. I agree that there is that most effective way of putting it, but I ask my hon. Friend and the House to consider this answer to it: We are trying to improve the field of the State's assistance by way of substitute income. When we are improving one field we have to remember that another improvement is made in another field, but the combination of our improvements can only at a certain time come to a certain range. I agree that there are always two views, and that it is most healthy that there should be, but the Government have to try and form their plan according to their purview of the whole field. That is what we have tried to do, and that is why we feel, in our first presentation of this scheme, that it is right not to have the duplication. Of course, we are always ready to consider suggestions which may be made but, on the other hand, we ask the House to consider the principle which underlies our action in this case.

Mr. J. Griffiths: We can discuss this matter again on the Committee stage, but the point is of importance in that so far as workmen's compensation is concerned it has a relationship to another Bill which the Minister of National Insurance is preparing, and which makes this difference: The new Workmen's Compensation Bill will provide for a contribution by a workman towards his own compensation. If there was to be a denial of the family allowance to the child of a disabled workman we ought to know that now, because it would colour our view towards the new Workmen's Compensation Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I thought I had dealt broadly with my hon. Friend's point on workmen's compensation. He will remember that I dealt with his point of the five-twelfth's contribution. The position with regard to workmen's compensation is that there you have 7s. 6d. for the first child and nothing for the others. To that scheme this would marry without any injustice.

Mr. J. Griffiths: At the moment the first child gets 7s. 6d. and the workman makes no contribution. Under the new scheme he will make a contribution.

The Solicitor-General: I have dealt with that point under the existing scheme, and I have indicated what is weighing in the Government's mind on the question of my hon. Friend's insurance point, which rests on the making of a contribution. Now I want to say a word or two with regard to the question of taxation.
It has been suggested that these payments should be free from tax. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Skipton took the opposite view, and I agree with him. That agreement is not based merely on the fact of saving money. I believe that, when we give recurrent or income benefits which increase the income, the contribution to the taxation of the country ought to come out automatically, according to the different incomes which the different recipients have. There is nothing to stop these allowances being received by people with vast incomes. Another £13 a year on top of a vast income will practically all go in taxation, whereas people in the £2 or £3 a week income range, will get probably the whole of the allowance. I think that is right in principle. [Interruption.] When you take into account the personal allowance, the earned income allowance and the children's allowance, there will not be even the £65 left which is now taxed at 6s. 6d. in the £. On the other hand, as a general principle I think it is right that we should work on the amount of money that is paid when we are giving the grant and that we should then say that the recipients, if it is an income grant, will pay their tax on it. If we once start trying to go into differences of taxation, it makes the payment of an income grant absolutely impossible.
My hon. and gallant Friend made a rather more difficult point when he put to me the question of Service allowances. He said that in the Services you do not pay Income Tax on your allowances; and why should we not have the same thing here. I think all the allowances that one used to get in the Army were made in lieu of what one should have got, if one had been living in. The background of it is that you used to get marriage quarters when marriage was only allowed after attaining a certain rank; you were supposed to get your own food allowance


and quarters allowance, and so on, and they are all really based on allowances in kind, which, of course, have never been taxable. But I do not think that is a conclusive argument, in view of the history of military allowances, against the general point that I have been putting.

Mr. Butcher: Will my hon. and learned Friend deal with my point that this allowance should be regarded as income but has to be expended on behalf of the child by the mother as the child's trustee and, therefore, the child not having private means, it would not attract liability to tax?

The Solicitor-General: I will certainly consider that but it seems to me a very artificial way of looking at the position. It is dependent really on the fact, on which I thought the House was in agreement, that we have to decide whether one parent or the other should own the allowance, and I said it was 18 to 1, as far as speeches are concerned, in favour of that parent being the mother. If that parent owns it, it would be artificial and difficult to treat it for taxation purposes as being in the ownership of the child. That would cause great difficulties and, at the same time, would be artificial and not in accordance with the fact.

Mr. Bowles: The mother gets it, and the father pays the tax.

The Solicitor-General: There is no dispute about that. Whoever gets it, the father has to pay the tax. I gather that the feminists view that with complete equanimity.

Miss Rathbone: I do not think that is the right way of putting it, because, under the existing law, the husband's and wife's incomes are pooled for purposes of taxation, so it makes no difference which pays it.

The Solicitor-General: That is what it says—that it makes no difference—and neither the hon. Lady nor the hon. Member for West Fulham seems to think that a matter for the slightest regret as far as the husband is concerned. There used to be some difficulty about taxation without representation but they have gone a stage further and declared themselves in  of taxation without receipt. That is certainly a new doctrine which the House has accepted with the greatest good humour.

Mr. Driberg: Husbands will find that they are being docked of an extra shilling or two.

Mr. Speaker: I hope we shall not anticipate what is going to be a very interesting discussion in Committee.

The Solicitor-General: I have left one point, and that is the case of the illegitimate child. I think we all agree that we must approach it with the greatest sympathy. I think the real answer to the qualms and doubts of the hon. Member for West Fulham is that in general the illegitimate child will attach himself or herself by maintenance to some other family. There are a few cases where the mother keeps the illegitimate child with her but, in the main, the child tends to get into another family and, of course, once it is attached by maintenance, as clearly as though it were attached by blood to the other family, the provisions of the Act will apply.
I have two apologies to make to the House. One is that the variety and number of the speeches have prevented me dealing as I should have liked with all the interesting points which every speaker has raised. The other is that I have taken a rather long time to deal with the broad points which I thought were of greatest interest to the House. The point of greatest interest to us all is this. We have with great pleasure and readiness turned our attention and thoughts to the assistance of the old, but still, at the bottom of our hearts, we know that the future and the reason why we care about the future is the existence and hopes of the young. I feel that in this Bill we have really looked towards that future, we have really done something to give the young a better chance, and if we can carry that into effective operation we shall, indeed, have taken part in something to which we can look back with modest pride.

Mr. J. J. Davidson: On the question of backward local authorities who refuse to supply meals to children, will the Government consider issuing a periodical black list of such authorities in order to spur on and inspire those in these authorities who are in favour of the Government's desire?

The Solicitor-General: There is power under the Education Act to urge them on or gear them up, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Educa-


tion is most anxious to make effective use of that power. I hope that that will satisfy my hon. Friend, but I will certainly bear in mind what he and others have said on this point.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Molson: I understand that the Government intend subsequently to move that this Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House. Since, under the Standing Orders, that Question can only be decided without Amendment or Debate, I am obliged to intervene on the Second Reading in order to give the reasons why my hon. Friends feel that it would be more appropriate if this Bill and all similar Bills were referred to a Standing Committee. There are two arguments in favour of its being so referred. The first is the lack of Parliamentary time. Hon. Members in all parts of the House are always asking the Government for days to debate Motions in which they have special interest, and the answer is almost invariably lack of time. If many Bills of this kind are to be dealt with in Committee of the House it will consume a large number of Parliamentary days. The second argument is the kind of scrutiny to which the Bill will be subjected. You yourself said, Mr. Speaker, a few moments ago that the House had to look forward to an uninteresting discussion in Committee—

Mr. Speaker: I said interesting discussion.

Mr. Molson: I apologise Mr. Speaker; I misheard. I certainly shall regard it as a most uninteresting discussion, and I suggest that it is the kind of matter of detail which could far better be referred to a Committee upstairs. I suggest that a Committee of 615 Members is not really suitable for considering in detail any large Measure. It is impossible for hon. Members with many other duties in other parts of the Palace to spend the whole of their time hearing discussions on the Committee stage. The result is that when a Division comes, many of those who take part in the Division have not heard the arguments which have been advanced in favour of an Amendment. I hope that the Government will consider whether the most desirable procedure is not for the policy of the Government to be accepted on the Second and Third Readings, and for the details of a Bill to be referred for consideration to a Committee upstairs.

7.16 p.m.

Sir W. Jowitt: I can speak again only with the leave of the House, and if I have that leave I would say that I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said, and I will certainly convey it to the Leader of the House. We have grown rather unaccustomed to realising that there are Committees upstairs. For a good many years all these Bills have been considered in Committee of the Whole House. In the old days it would have been an unheard of thing that this Bill, which is quite plainly a Money Bill—the imposition of a charge being the main substance of the Bill—should have been taken in any way other than in Committee of the Whole House. There is now a new Standing Order, No. 64A, under which it is possible to do otherwise. I think our practice, with regard to these Money Bills, thanks to the Standing Order, is to have our Second Reading before we pass the Financial Resolution. The practice still is that they should be taken in Committee of the Whole House.
I take it that the Leader of the House, in considering whether it should be a Committee of the Whole House or upstairs, senses the opinion of the House, considers the nature and extent of the Bill and the number of people who are to be affected by it, and the question whether the interest in the Bill is wide spread or not, and also, as the hon. Member said, the state of Business of the House and of the Committee. I will certainly convey to my right hon. Friend what has been said, and in future I will see that the question of whether it should be a Committee of the Whole House or not is always very carefully considered.

Miss Rathbone: If there was any consideration of not taking this Bill in Committee of the Whole House, would that not completely do away with the concession that the Government have made in agreeing that the question of the payment of the money to the mother shall be left to a free vote? You cannot have a free vote in Standing Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. Mathers.]

Committee upon Tuesday next.

Orders of the Day — FAMILY ALLOWANCES [MONEY]

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order No. 69.

[MAJOR MILNER in the Chair]

Resolved:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the payment of family allowances, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) allowances for families which include two or more children, in respect of each child in a family other than the elder or eldest at the rate of five shillings a week;
(b) remuneration and allowances (including compensation for loss of remunerative time) to members of any panel of referees appointed for the purposes of the said Act, and expenses in connection with references to referees so appointed and of the attendance of persons at proceedings on such references;
(c) expenses incurred in the administration of the said Act;
(d) sums required for giving effect to financial adjustments in connection with reciprocal arrangements mad3 under the said Act with other countries.—(King's Recommendation signified.)—[Sir W. Jowitt.]

Resolution to be reported upon Tuesday next.

HOUSING (AGRICULTURAL WORKERS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Mathers.]

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I apologise for detaining the House at this time. On 25th January I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health:
whether, as the programme of 3,000 houses for agricultural workers is virtually completed, he will arrange for the building of a further 3,000 houses to assisting in meeting the acute housing shortage in the countryside."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th January, 1945; Vol. 407, c. 957.]
His reply indicated there were difficulties in this matter. This question of housing in the rural areas is becoming more and more acute, and I do not know what the position is likely to be, unless the Government take the most energetic steps within their power to deal with the matter at the earliest possible moment. I suggest that the most satisfactory method of dealing with it is, again, to duplicate the programme of 3,000 houses for rural workers which was initiated by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 4th February, 1943. The reason for initiating that programme was that the increased food production has aggravated the exist-

ing shortage of houses. That shortage has become greater and greater ever since, and, as a result, labour does not now move to the farm which needs it most. Workers move to farms that can offer a roof for the agricultural worker and his family. The urgency of this demand for houses in 1943 was shown by the keen interest which this House displayed from time to time by Questions, addressed to the Minister, as to the progress being made. Indeed, the announcement had scarcely been made that this programme had been instituted when Questions began to appear on the Order Paper asking what progress had been made. A flood of Questions was addressed to the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and his Parliamentary Secretary on this matter.
Now, when the flood of Questions has subsided, we can see the positive advantages this scheme has given us. I believe they are three-fold. First, we gained widespread experience in the building of rural houses all over England. Secondly, rural councils have been able to overhaul and get working again the machinery for dealing with this problem. We have tested out costs of building in rural areas. We have had a chance of training workers in building, and above all, and this is the most important point, we have 2,800 houses to show for it, which means that that number of houses is off the waiting lists of local authorities. I believe that the right thing to do now is to have another scheme for 3,000 houses, and see whether we cannot build them at a lower price, and in a shorter time.
After all, the Ministry of Health, if my right hon. and learned Friend will permit me to say so, is the right Ministry for housing problems. He is the Minister responsible, and it was his Ministry which was expensively educated after the last war, at Government expense, to deal with this matter. It was an expensive education, but the Ministry proved an apt pupil, and in the Ministry we have the additional advantage that it is, of all the Ministries, the one in closest touch with this House. I think of those who have occupied the position now held by my right hon. and learned Friend—the late Neville Chamberlain and Sir Kingsley Wood, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Green-


wood), and so on. Now this housing question seems to be slipping away from the Ministry that knows the job and that can do the job, and is disappearing somewhere over the other side of Lambeth Bridge, where a Commissioner of Works, enlarged and swollen by the war, has taken his offices. The Department that once was in charge of this House and of the great vine at Hampton Court, and that used to build post offices and employment exchanges that were required by various Government Departments, is in charge of this matter.
I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to look at his matter again, to examine the work done under the programme of 3,000 houses, and to see whether it is not possible to put another scheme like that in hand, under the sole control of his Ministry. I believe that he would get the whole-hearted co-operation of every rural district council. They are disappointed that this scheme is not being driven forward. They know and trust his Ministry. If there are any difficulties in the way, either of labour or of the supply of materials, I hope he will take this House very fully into his confidence, so that the House can give him the assistance that it gives to Ministers charged with difficult jobs. Rural housing must not be allowed to go by default. It is so easy to surge ahead with great schemes for dwellings—it was going to be a great scheme for temporary dwellings: now we are to have great schemes for permanent dwellings. These 2,800 houses put up by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's predecessor are in the countryside, with families in them. They are known as the "Brown" houses. I want to see 3,000 houses that can be called the "Willink" houses.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Edgar Granville: We are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for raising this question of an increased supply of rural houses, because, as he says, the matter is very urgent. In the county of Suffolk the shortage of rural houses has become chronic. There have been no number of repairs carried out, and no replacements, and we received only a very few of the 3,000 cottages built under what was called the "Brown" scheme. I have hardly the heart to write any longer to the billeting officers or housing officers in my part of the country, because they are endlessly

trying, so far as I can see, to get a quart out of a pint pot. I am glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health is here, because he is very much concerned with this question. Old people are occupying farm cottages because the county institutions are full, there are no vacancies available as I know in Stow-market or because there is a shortage of man-power or woman-power in the county institutions. These old people are left in the cottages without the care and attention they should receive. That is a very serious aspect of the rural housing problem. I realise that there is a man-power problem, which primarily concerns the Minister of Labour. Another aspect of the position is that magistrates receive an application for possession of cottages, because farmers want to put in farm workers at the behest of the Minister of Agriculture, or the W.A.E. Committee, to increase food production. What can they do? The magistrates are giving orders for possession of these cottages, and whoever is living in a cottage is dispossessed, and in some cases is left with no alternative accommodation. As I say, I have hardly the heart to write to the billeting and housing officers, because I know the worrying position they are in.
The position in some of these villages is pathetic. There is serious overcrowding. There is a waiting list. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, most of the Members representing rural constituencies could give him case after case of serious hardship. I wonder that the Minister of Agriculture does not stand on his hind legs and protest on behalf of the community, which has stood him well and backed him up in his war time food production programme. The National Farmers' Union and the Agricultural Workers' Union have passed resolutions of protest, and have stated over and over again their anxiety with regard to the serious shortage of farm cottages in the villages. They have said that the countryside will be hard put to it to maintain food production unless there is an increase in the number of cottages available. I wish the Minister of Agriculture would put up a fight about it, if it is a question of priorities of materials and man-power.
Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not do something about the houses and cottages requisitioned by the Army authorities and really available


which may require a little repair or, perhaps, more than a little repair? Has the Minister looked through the number of evacuated business offices, offices evacuated from London during the blitz or later, which have taken root in some of the rural areas where there is a housing shortage? Has he considered the possibility of cottages and houses around the airfields that were taken over and may now be available? Has he considered that we may have to take over some of the hostels of the Women's Land Army? Some of these hostels may be available, I imagine, after the disappointing statement of the Prime Minister to-day that they are not going to get the war gratuity or the business grants scheme. I imagine that they will all want to transfer into the A.T.S., W.A.A.F.S. and Wrens and that some of their hostels may be available for emergency housing accommodation.
As the Minister knows, it is not the fault of the local councils. They can do nothing. They are tied hand and foot, and can do little but pass resolutions and make vain appeals on a short-term programme to the Minister of Health. The Government have promised an amendment to the Rural Workers Housing Act. I believe that a Question was asked the other day, and that the answer was that it was to be introduced shortly. I beg the Minister to regard this as a matter of urgent priority and of great importance to the amenities of the deserving countryside. We cannot wait for the long-term housing programme. But why not use the local builders? If we give them the opportunity, and the materials and manpower and, above all, gave back to small local builders the equipment which they, in most cases, voluntarily surrendered to the large contractors when the Government wanted airfields and camps constructed as a matter of prior urgency, I am perfectly certain that they could carry out a considerable programme of repairs, of reconstruction and even of new houses.
Finally, I say that, if this is the case now, in the name of goodness, what is going to be the position in rural as well as urban areas when demobilisation begins and the men and women come back from the Forces? I warn the Government that, over this housing problem, there are going to be crucial Debates in this House, and that will be the most serious domestic

crisis in the history of this country unless the Government take steps now to grapple with it on a bold scale. In my submission, unless this problem is dealt with as we dealt with the supply of war equipment and aircraft, and unless the Government appoint a man of initiative, drive and energy, a man with the resourcefulness of a Beaverbrook, it is going to be one of the biggest domestic problems we have had to solve. If the Minister cannot get the necessary powers, I ask him to come to the House of Commons for them, so that the housing programme will be for the rural areas not one of 3,000 houses, but of 30,000.

7.35 p.m.

Lieut. - Commander Joynson - Hicks: I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) has just said, not all of it, but a good deal of it, and I agree with him most heartily in urging the seriousness of this problem. If for nothing else, we are indebted to my hon. Friend for raising this question on the Adjournment for the reason that, if it gets reported in the local papers, it will bring some hope to the people in the countryside who are not only worried but just desperate about the question of housing. At any rate, it will show them that we here in Parliament are interested and worried about the subject ourselves. It is nearly two years since I put a Question to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Ministry of Works, when all the world was being led to hope that the solution of the housing problem would come through the temporary prefabricated house, asking him how he proposed to make this house available in the rural areas where no electricity, gas or main water supplies were laid on? I received the answer one might have expected, a perfectly straightforward, honest answer, that prefabricated temporary houses were neither of any use for nor were they intended for rural areas where those conditions prevailed.
Then I turned my attention to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Health and asked him what steps he proposed to take to meet the rural housing needs, in view of the fact that the temporary prefabricated houses were of no avail. He said that the matter was having attention and that he would be making a statement on the subject shortly. He made his statement but he has not, as yet, produced any houses, and that is


what we need. The situation is really quite as serious as has been represented this evening. Houses have been demolished in the country as the result of enemy action. It is not only the towns that have suffered. They have fallen terribly into disrepair and many houses are still being occupied which have been condemned for years. In addition to all that, the post-war state of the problem is one of very acute concern indeed. A lot of the agricultural labour, particularly that supplied by the Women's Land Army, and the temporary labour supplied by the Forces and organisations generally have been housed either in the towns, coming out in lorries, or in hostels. They have not been in occupation of the rural workers' houses or of cottages and, therefore, after the war, when that labour is removed, there will be no release of cottages or rural dwellings for those who are to work on the land.
But, upon the other hand, the labour will have to be reinstated on the land. People will come out of the Forces to go and work on the land and the housing conditions will become much worse. Will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps, even if he cannot go as far as the hon. Member for Eye suggested, to enable the country builder to get to work? There are an enormous number of country builders dotted about the countryside itself. They have the materials and themselves can provide the skill and the technical side of the labour, and they can get locally the unskilled labour which is necessary to complete the job. If only the restrictions could be removed and these local builders could be allowed to go ahead, while I do not say that the situation would be by any means solved, at any rate it would show that something was being done and it would tend to ease what is a very aggravated situation indeed. I have spoken rather harshly to my right hon. and learned Friend. May I conclude by saying that I know he is in full sympathy with this matter? I know he must be well aware of the difficulties, if not in Norfolk and the Eastern counties, at any rate in the part of the country I represent, which he knows very well indeed. I hope sincerely that he will, if necessary, increase his local knowledge, and when he next pays my constituency the honour of a visit he will recognise for himself how serious the situation is. If we down there can help him we shall be

only too glad to do so, but we hope he will help us as well.

7.41 p.m.

Dr. Peters: I endorse what my hon. Friends say, living as I do in the countryside. There is one thing I would like my right hon. and learned Friend to bear in mind. In my own county we have, I suppose, something like 8,000 acres taken up by aerodromes, with enormous airways and, within reason, with water supply, electric light, sanitation, and so on, some of them quite near to villages. Then we have camps in connection with these aerodromes, with similar facilities, and miles of roads. These would be enormously expensive to take up, and I suggest that my right hon. and learned Friend might have regard to those works if there is to be an immediate, or, at any rate let us hope, some near-future effort to provide buildings for temporary housing. I do not see how we can erect houses, properly built of brick and stone and so on, to meet the immediate needs, and the position is quite as impossible as by hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) has indicated. It is no use writing to billeting officers. I have been in the county courts and have seen judges sitting a whole day dealing with nothing else but possession cases, and very much concerned as to what order to make. Therefore, if we could make use of the facilities at our door, even if only as a temporary arrangement, it would save a great deal of trouble, although the farmers may be calling out for the return of the land.

7.42 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Willink): I do not complain for one moment of the strength of the language that has been used by my hon. Friends with regard to this question of rural housing. As they are well aware, they have not left me enough time to deal in any way adequately with the number of points they have made, but that is not so serious as it might be, because I have reason to hope that there will be an opportunity of dealing with this subject in a comprehensive way at no distant date. There are, however, a few points which I would like to make in this short time before I answer specifically the points suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) with regard to an additional programme of rural houses.
I was very grateful for what was said about the close relations between the rural district councils and my Department, both now and in the past, and for the tribute that was paid to the work of my predecessor and the Department in connection with those 3,000 cottages. I think there is no doubt that, small-scale though that programme was, it has been educative in many ways. It has taught rural district councils what a good cottage should be, and aesthetically, and in many other ways, they are a great advantage to the countryside where they stand.
The things which I would stress particularly are three: I remember in a rural housing Debate two or three months ago, that a rural Member—I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller)—said that, though a rural Member, he had the greatest direct interest in the efficiency of the repair of London, because it was only when that work was done that he could hope to get men back to the countryside. Now that repair work has not become less in the intervening period; in fact the concentration of men upon that work is to-day greater than it has ever been. There are in London no less than 45,000 men from the provinces and, serious though the situation is in the country, as everywhere else, perhaps the most important thing of all is to get the inconvenience and worse which results from war damage straightened out before we go on with our main job.
Secondly, there is still much preparatory work to be done in many rural districts. It is true that the land acquired by rural district councils is sufficient for 33,000 houses and that land for another 60,000 houses is in course of acquisition. I would urge members of the housing committees of rural district councils to apply themselves to this matter, to study that most valuable Report we got from the Hobhouse Committee and make themselves ready in every way to go to tender for such cottages as we can authorise at the earliest possible moment. That involves the submission of lay-outs for villages and small towns, and getting the preparatory work done, such as roads for heavy traffic and drains. What is really essential is that in order that every rural council may be able to make a start with a reasonable proportion of their first year's programme, nothing must be

left undone that can be done now. Thirdly, I entirely agree that there are large areas of the countryside in respect of which amendment of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act would be of value. That cannot be discussed now, but I have promised recently that that is to be regarded as a matter of high priority, and that the advice which has been given to us will be taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston asked for a new programme. I cannot believe that that would be right at this moment, and that on a balanced view, when one considers the destruction and loss of houses in towns, it could be considered right, except for a specified war need, to start on a programme for the rural districts this month, next month, or for a few months to come. As my Noble Friend the Minister of Reconstruction said in another place, we hope that the building of new houses will start this year, and we want everybody to be ready to make that start. We believe that that is the greatest contribution which rural districts, which are as keen on this work as anybody in this House and as I am myself, can make in the present situation. I cannot hold out hope with this immense concentration of labour in London, and the demands for labour at this double peak of the war, of embarking on a special rural programme this year; but I hope that in the war-damaged districts advantage will be taken of the opportunity of rebuilding war-damaged houses up to the value of £1,500, offered in a circular I issued last November. For the rest, I hope the advice we have given to the rural councils, to get themselves absolutely ready, will be taken.
A word or two was said about temporary houses. It is true that there are many places where the need is most urgent, and hon. Members may like to know that, whereas at the beginning allocations were made only to crowded urban areas, the rural councils have now been invited to apply for allocations. There are many rural districts which have parts of their areas where, temporary houses can be suitably erected, and 6,000 of them have been allocated.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes before Eight o'Clock.